Mason v. Wallace

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana

Mason v. Wallace

16 F. Cas. 1065, 4 McLean 77

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana

DecidedMay 15, 1846

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 F. Cas. 1065 (Mason v. Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mason v. Wallace, 16 F. Cas. 1065, 4 McLean 77 (circtdin 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is a bill for the specific execution of a contract, and the defense is, that the complainant has been negligent in making his payments, and, therefore, not entitled to a decree.

The contract was a purchase of certain lots in New Albany, and several years have-elapsed since the purchase, and the complainant took no effectual steps to perform [1066]*1066his contract, until a tender of the money was made a short time before this bill was filed. But the complainant, shortly after the purchase, entered into the possession of the property, and made permanent and lasting improvements upon it. The improvements have cost more than four times the value of the lots, and they were made with the knowledge of the defendant, and with his presumed acquiescence. The complainant averred a readiness to pay, which the answer denied.

[See Case No. 9,255.]

If this case stood upon the contract alone, we should have no hesitancy in dismissing the bill. Where time is not made the essence of the contract, the purchaser is bound to pay the consideration in a reasonable time. That time may vary according to circumstances, and not unfrequently an excuse may be deemed sufficient for the delay. But where change in the value of the property occurs, and there has been unnecessary delay, chancery will not aid the purchaser. Borne of the courts, in late decisions, have shown a disposition to require more promptness in the purchaser, than has, heretofore, been required. Where the relative positions of the parties, in regard to the property, remain unchanged, and there are no circumstances of hardship, the interest on the money is often deemed a compensation for the deiay of payment. And this is especially the case where the purchaser is in possession of the property, and has expended large sums in improving it.

In the case under consideration, the improvements made by the complainant are permanent, and of great value; and the fact of delay is the only objection made to a specific execution of the contract. The improvements could not have been made without the knowledge of the defendant. The complainant was not formally put into possession by the defendant, but there was an acquiescence in his possession, and in the expenditures on the property. Under the circumstances, we feel bound to give effect to the contract, but in doing so. we will require the complainant to pay interest on the sum due, up to the time of making the payments, and the court will require this to be done in sixty days.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is a bill for the specific execution of a contract, and the defense is, that the complainant has been negligent in making his payments, and, therefore, not entitled to a decree.

The contract was a purchase of certain lots in New Albany, and several years have-elapsed since the purchase, and the complainant took no effectual steps to perform [1066]*1066his contract, until a tender of the money was made a short time before this bill was filed. But the complainant, shortly after the purchase, entered into the possession of the property, and made permanent and lasting improvements upon it. The improvements have cost more than four times the value of the lots, and they were made with the knowledge of the defendant, and with his presumed acquiescence. The complainant averred a readiness to pay, which the answer denied.

[See Case No. 9,255.]

If this case stood upon the contract alone, we should have no hesitancy in dismissing the bill. Where time is not made the essence of the contract, the purchaser is bound to pay the consideration in a reasonable time. That time may vary according to circumstances, and not unfrequently an excuse may be deemed sufficient for the delay. But where change in the value of the property occurs, and there has been unnecessary delay, chancery will not aid the purchaser. Borne of the courts, in late decisions, have shown a disposition to require more promptness in the purchaser, than has, heretofore, been required. Where the relative positions of the parties, in regard to the property, remain unchanged, and there are no circumstances of hardship, the interest on the money is often deemed a compensation for the deiay of payment. And this is especially the case where the purchaser is in possession of the property, and has expended large sums in improving it.

In the case under consideration, the improvements made by the complainant are permanent, and of great value; and the fact of delay is the only objection made to a specific execution of the contract. The improvements could not have been made without the knowledge of the defendant. The complainant was not formally put into possession by the defendant, but there was an acquiescence in his possession, and in the expenditures on the property. Under the circumstances, we feel bound to give effect to the contract, but in doing so. we will require the complainant to pay interest on the sum due, up to the time of making the payments, and the court will require this to be done in sixty days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 1065, 4 McLean 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-wallace-circtdin-1846.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack