Daily Mississippi clarion and standard. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1866, 1866-05-17
DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT
OF RRORs AND APPEALS,
AT THE APRIL TERM, 1866
Reported Expressly for abe Mississippi
standard and Clarion.

Reported Expressly for abe MississipPi
STANDARD and Clarion.
Henry C. Daniel, Appeal from the Special
VS. Court of Equity at Jack
Micajah Frazer son.
OPINION OF The COURT DELIVERED By Mr..
JUSTICE Elicit
In this case it appears, from the testimony
of complainant himself that on the 9th of
February, 1865, he purchased the plantation
OF the defendant, situate IN Holmes county,
about fifty or sixty miles from Jackson. and
400 bushels of corn. At the same time de-
PENDANT offered TO sell him all the cotton on
the place, estimated by him at about thirty
bales ten of which according to the estimate,
were in the lint. and twenty in the seed
Complainant, thinking the cotton bad in
vestment, declined to purchase II. Finding
afterwards that he could make an advanta-
geOus use of il. he returned to defendants
house on the 18th day OF March, and pur
chased it. He states the transaction in these
words: Il purchased his defendants cot
ton at one dollar per pound, payable IN Con
federate money l did not have the money
with me at the time TO pay Tor the cotton,
and so informed Col. Frazer. He said that
was perfectly immaterial, that we could not
weigh the cotton Just then, and he did not
expect to use the money Immediately.
This agreement was not good or valid to
TO bind either party, the property not hav-
lug been received in whole or in part by the
buyer; the purchase money not having been
paid or secured; and no note or memoran-
dunn III writing of the bargain having been
made and signed by either of them. While
the matter remained in this situation, both
parties We're at liberty to retraet and if the
cotton had been destroyed, the loss would
unquesti6hably have fallen upon the defen-
daut.
On the 9th of March, the defendant pro-
posed TO complainant to allow him to retain
one bale of the lot, and that complainant
should take the residue, without weighing,
as being twenty-seven bales of 400 pounds
each, and pay for it at the rate of one dollar
a pound, to which proposition complainant
acceded, but it was waived, on account of
his not having money enough with him to
make the payment
On the l4th ofApril, complainant received
the information of the surrender of Gen.
Lee, and on the next morning the fact was
announced IN the paper published in the
city of jackson, where complainant resided.
On that day he dispatched a special meSsen-
ger on horseb back, to the defendant thereby
anticipating the arrival of the railroad train
| bearing this news, in the vicinity where
defendant resided, and proposed in writing
to accept the offer made ON the 9th of March,
and to take the cotton at twenty-seven bales
of 400 pounds each, after deducting one bale
for the use of the defendant. The agent who
| bore this proposition, and the COnfed-
crate money TO carry 1t out,
on being asked by defendant
if there was any news, replied that he had
no news, but that there were some rumors
of no interest. The.defendant, in ignorance
of the fact that any thing had occurred to
depreciate the value of Confederate money,
accepted the payment, and made written
transfer of the cotton. The question is.
whether Court of Equity viii lend its aid
to enforce the specific performance of this
| contract.
1t is unnecessary to decide whether in a
| court of law this contract would be held
void on account of false representations, or
| fraudulent concealment, by the complain
| ant That question is not before this Court.
| The specific performance of contracts in
! equity, Is not matter of right, but of sound
! legal discretion, and il will never be de
/ creed unless the contract is Just and fair in
| all its parts. Hard and uuconscionable
| bargains viii not be enforced, nor will re
| lief be given in any cases where such a de
! cree would be ineq uitable.under all the cir
! cumstances. In the present case, the verbal
/ contract of sale was entered into with
| reference to the then value of Confederate
| money. At the time when the final sale was
| made, the complainant was in possession OF
facts that had then very greatly impaired
| the value of this money, if they had not al
already rendered it utterly worthless In
stead of communicating these facts to the
defendant, complainant in his letter wholly
| abStalned from any allusi0n to them, and
put his anxiety to close the purchase on
wholly different grounds Had the defend
ant been aware of the facts that We're with
in the knowledge of complainant it is not
at all supposable that he would have en-
tered into the contract. Tln consideration
| paid for the cotton was grossly inadequate
| and the circumstances disclose a case not at
all entitled to the consideration of court OF
| equity. The . failure to notify disaffir-
nance OF the contract, and to return the
money, at an earlier day, is sufficiently ex-
| planned.
Without any reference to other important
questions presented by the record, and re
garding the case in the strongest and most
favorable light for the complainant, we
think the decree of the Court.belOw, dismiss
ing the petition, was correct, and ought to
dtflTmeU.