Daily Mississippi clarion and standard. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1866, 1866-05-17
DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT
OF ERRORs AND APPRALs.
AT THE APRIL TERM, 1866.


Henry C. Daniel, Appeal from the Special
Micaiah Frazer. |son = rs
OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY Mr..
JUSTICE ELLETT.
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 i'll
vestment, declined to purchase 1t. Finding
afterwards that he could make an advanta-
geous use of it, 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. 4 / did not have the money
with me at the time to pay for 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 the money Immediately
This agreement was not good or valid to
to bind either party, tbs property not hav-
| ing been received in whole or in part by the
| buyer the purchase money not having been
| paid or secured; and no note or memoran-
| DUN i'll writing of the bargain having been
| made and signed by either of them. While
the matter remained in this situation, both
parties were at liberty to retract, and If the
| cotton had been destroyed, the loss would
| unquesti6nably have fallen upon the defen-
| dant.
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 I4th 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 special messen-
| ger on horseback, 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 it out,
on being asked by defendant
ii 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 will lend its aid
to enforce the specific performance of this
contract.
1t is unnecessary to decide whether in 4
court of law, this contract would be held
void on account of false representations, OF
fraudulent concealment, by the complain
ant. That question is not before this Court
The specific performance of contracts in
equity, is not a matter of right, but of sound
legal discretion, and il will never be de
creed unless the contract is just and fair il
all its parts. Hard and unconscionablt
bargains will not be enforced. nor will re
lief be given in any cases where such de
cree would be inequitableund all the cir
cumstances. In the present case, the verba
contract of sale was entered into will
reference to the then value of Confederat,
money. At the time when the final sale wa
made, the complainant was in possession o
, 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 III
defendant complainant in his letter who'll
abstained from any allusiOn to them, AM
! put his anxiety to close the purchase o.
: wholly different grounds. Had the defend
J ant been aware of the facts that were with
in the knowledge of complainant, it is no
at all supposable that he would have ell
tered into the contract. Tie consideration
paid for the cotton was grossly inadequat,
and the circumstances disclose a case not a
l,I +1,,. 4.
equity. The failure to notify a disaffil
nance of the contract, and to return tn
money, at an earlier day, is sufficiently el
planned
f Without any reference to other impOrtau
! questions presented by the record, and T,
garding the case in the strongest and mos
> favorable light for the complainant W
n think the decree of the COurt.below, dismis
q ing the petition, was correct. and ought I
: affirmed.