The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-05-26
Hftlalefa NJ me- Ilifh famn NJ
fffefs HHa lEpesit

lifHfN 2 IlfHifl VIZ VIZ Uah lfH
~ Ausfl lum Nv Special tmfI
n lUHlif n ltehWn
misHs ~ fnf Htnf hffigffIf
Hf W. tf#ftf fffFff
" this oiH u apl#sn, ffmm lIf
testimony ~ complainant himmlf
thai NJ he nih of feIansfg. lsa3
ha purchased me- plantation N ihs
defendant illuale IN ll0lmfi emhig
alHW hly m HstF Mills lftm Iafk
s9n ahd i0U hualeli If ean 81
The nmt time defendant alisfol b.
ssll him sll The eti1u m ihe place.
estimated w him N alrmt thIfif
Imlet. ten NJ which, according ~ M
estimate. were IN the lint and twenty
N the seed Complainant, thinking
The eUlton bad Investment, declined
10 purchase N Finding anafwanl
that he could make m adyaniagem.
usc " Il, he returned N defendant
house on Tie lIih day IT March, and
purchased w. w. states the trans.
action III these words Il purchased
his (defcnlnut's) cotton NJ me dollar
pcr pound, payable In Cuniedemte
money | did not have the money
with Inc NJ the time 10 piy for the
cotton, and 50 informed Col. fmkcr,
lie said that WIS perfectly inmate
rial, that We could not weigh the
cotton Just then, and he did not cx.
peol TO use the money Immediately"
This agreement was no, good or
valid TO bindeitlicr party, the property
not having been received In whole
or in part by the buyer the purchase
money not having been paid or Sc
cured and no note or memorandum
in writing of the bargain having
been made and signed by either Of
them. While the matter remained
In this situation, both parties were
nj liberty TO retract, and IL the cotton
had been destroyed, the loss would
unqucstionably have fallen upon III,
defendant.
On the 9th of March, the de.
fendant proposed to complainant Il
allow him 10 retain one bale Of th,
lot, and that complainant should take
the residue, without weighing, as be-
ing twenty-seven bales Of 400 pound,
each, and pay for il Mt the rate o.
one dollar a pound, to which propo-
sition complainant acceded, but il
was waived, on account Of his moi
having money enough with him t'
make the payment.
On the l4th of April, complainant
received the information of the sur.
render of Gen. Lee, and on the mex
morning the fact. was announced II
the paper published in the city o
jackson, where complainant resided
On that. day he dispatched a specia
messenger ON horseback, to the de
fcndant, thereby anticipating th'
arrival of the railroad train bearing
this news, in the vicinity where de
iendant resided, and proposed il
writing to accept the offer made OF
the 9th Of March, and to take th,
cotton at twenty-seven bales Of 40t
pounds each, after deducting on
bale for the use Of the defendant
The agent who bore this proposition
and the Confederate money 10 carr,
it out, on being asked by defendan
IL there was any news, replied tina
he had no news, but that there wer
some rumors Of no interest. The de
fendant, in ignorance Of the fac
that any thing had occurred to dcpre
ciate the value Of Confederate money
accepted the payment, and made
written transfer of the cotton. TIL
question is, whether a Court Of Equi
ty will lend its aid to enforce th
specific performance Of this contract
II is unnecessary to decide whether
in a court Of law, this contract woul'
be held void on account Of falls
representations, or fraudulent con
cealment, BY the complainant. Tha
question is not before this Court
! The specific performance Of contract
} in equity, is not matter Of righl
but Of sound legal discretion, aud
will never be decrecd unless the con
tract Is just and fair in all its part
Hard and uncomfortable bargain
will not be enforced, nor will reli'
be given in any cases where such
, decree would be incquitablc und'
, all the circumstances. In the pre-
: ent case, the verbal contract Of sa
, was entered into with reference
the then value Of Confederate none
e At the time when the final sale WI
: made, the complainant was in po
2 session Of facts that had then veI
! greatly impaired the value Of III
: monc,, IL they had not already rel
J., dercG il utterly worthless. Instef
e of communicating these facts TO n
;. defendant, complainant IN his lett
wholly abstaincd from any allusi,
to them, and put his anxiety to clio
the purchase on wholly diiierc
t grounds. Had the defendant be-
4 aware Of the facts that were with
the knowledge Of complainant, Il
1 not at all supposable that he won
have entered into the contract. II
y consideration paid for the cotton "
grossly inadequate, and the circur
stances disclose a case not nj all q
titled TO the consideration Of a co,
!. Of equity. The failure 10 notify
I; disaiiirmance Of the contract, and
4 return the money, at an caller d.
!, Is sufficiently explained.
!. Without any reference 10 otl
a important questions presented by