New-York tribune., 1841-10-26

eoui,v Of court OF law consists OF cases IN "ii,1
nc debtor /, benefited by. and -eeN' 10 "a
c.rdei = penalty Nsh.lle :. L;ndi,~
l,i,,b,,, la2A Here, if the agreement j. JIM,
~. ID n be for the defendant benefit
81 al II : sying the 500 a the A4nissted
price OF 'o.o, ~ me that the sum OF 500 specified
II nav be considered p. iateaded b.
~ ~ n he the price TO be paid by Day u2ou
,'ie Pc =, f,,lflit l. bears very reasonable
.ro,ortion 10 the purchase moHey-such prspor
ION p. nigh, very reasonably BE- inserted a Z
over of ali the damages hkeIy 70 arse from the
;o.s Of another bargain. L. then, this sum. and
thu. alone could have been recovered at aw. the
question j. what rght las the complainant To
come mo this cour: 10 enforce It. He can get of
course 10 other relief mere than the recovery Of
This sum. The cases are uIrnerou= OF q veador
filing bii, for specific performances and the re-
lief is in general merely the payment OF the prr-
chase ,r.o.ry. But doubt extremely whether IL
naked Gaze Of aa argument 20 -eil, 70 possession
taken by he yende-. equitable circumstances
irwin. a r.gh; 10 come mere. ~ case Preciuding
ns-I Inv ne ri-ft IT law-but ca-e Of a plain
eral contract. in vhic', nothing bEt Inc contract
rrice Z. 70 be recovered. "a bill = sU'ranaoIe he
ars,rl - the rule that u veHd.c -sal have spc-
.-fc rerf,rr,auc,. it, :s stated hy ]U-iice story.
,ba. he land alone may be The Object of the pur-
.,,,..r's desire the value at TIC ume being 1oihns
r.. him: and no d.,abt numerous cases arse ~
/ ,ylich vendors bil i praPe- t'orn some detect
IS ,he co0irac: at law. or from the possession
being taken, Involving an nccouat. snail r. Ter
merely 10 scrne ca-es. with ~ entering upon that
,ip~s,ion.- Turns nd ". Chq1oncmogRc @ Price
i3Dl; .Jcatins ". H3Hos 6 Nrsey 6iA) Bran
mopi =, Berries (Jrcnbs Rep. 10 Rose v
Calltp9 8 Vc.cy 1860 Pa,en -. Rarers Is
Mad Rep. 256); lie Groad -, Whitehead q
Russell, 30a); R-N.nef =. hces Keen Rep.
100: Horr,S ". -VcNsH. q Russell COL
In the case Of Bl7,cr Stfrrns te:sre me in
Fe5r.arv term last; the objection was rot ta.en.
and tie Defendant had gone into possession OF the
premises nader the agreement.
There are rong reasons WY purchaser or de-
cendnni should submit 10 defend ms case in tfis
court even y,here the natter is clear at law. He
IA. the advantage OF thorough examination OF
the title Us compelling tie piolurtion Of deed>.
md ne j., not compelled l- tail souoifui ii;!e.
Bat it strikes me as clear that II the point is re
iuccd to this-thal 'hiag can be recovered butt
iixcd sum stipulated to be paid upon default and
PLAIN and certain remedy exists ri aw for ii, re-
coy..y his court ought not TO entertain the case.
forbear to enter upon tn question OF mental
capacity, or 20 decide the cause upon any conc.H
sion Us to the fact OF Day competency to con-
tract. There j. however. striking fact that
viii make the cou, pause much before giving is
rcli.i. Inc contract = dated on the ooh OF
March 1899, and the price be paid j. $500
BY referring to the Masters Report OF sale in
VcCIcnachaH ~. Dry, and others, it will appear,
TIA, on the I'm OF April. 83G. there was due :,
the compliments S4.396 10, principal ard inter
est. he PERIOD OF redemption expired on the
7th of March. 1889. The costs were 3iG7. S&2.
Adding eleven rnouth, inicr.-; to the debt, there
was about ), $40 due on the last mentioned day
for debt and costs.
Wag-ta;i depo.es. that "a he thinks about two
month, before DAYS death. he had Il conversation
,i.h him about this property. Day told him il had
been sold under Il iUrcclosure that Mr. Murray
was the purchaser and tina, the period Of rcdeino-
ZION was ubout expiring. He consulted the wit
ness about the cxrcdiency Of redeemiug It, and
wa, advised TO do 80. ", he ncclccts to do this.
and in a very shor, time arlcr agrees 10 ray c>s
Thousand dollars more than ne would have had 10
pay and Ia pay it within iorty.cn2 dsys. Ii may
be that ii was supposed By him easier ~ raise the
whole amount by the first Of Aay than on toe 9TH
OF March, but sill It is singular tha, 81 man of
his then credit should have had any difficulty in
doing So, especially with the security of the pro-
perry to he given for considerable amotnI, II
raised a loan.
| should fee, great hesitation in enforcing this
contract if the other objection was not in the way
| should be much i.cned to esyc the parties 20
law Beaxlpont v. DcrieS, (IacOb, 424 Tho
The view have ts,ken render. it unnecessary 10
decide the questions as iothe adns- biiy Of CciE- :
testimony. 1t appears that after his direct cNsru-
nation wa, finished an iournmcn' took place.
The Defendants co.i.sc attended 1t the time j;
l. TO, stated whcjh tho witness was then produ-
red Subsequently, Lc ,.uS married Ia one ut IN.