Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-10-09

p mcoarty and B. p KYLE whereby the former agreed to
interest The n v "a snd Sa q
substances Of this reduced e wrling ga
str ument msmorandum Of contract, title
But &. @ does not n Sol o s
ter The wnea3 bce, who the memorandum PEN
in substance ha was ne hsr bond Tor sor deed bal
Joint Obligation setting forth the and eOnditlensef
n he case Beth parties signed the lpstru-
cuted thereafter that there resting On the
mind that the writing between the paties sEo
rsnda Of the contract which to be formally exc
contents Of this memorandum are not proven fur
ther than in general terms does appear had the
custody of how it lost destroyed All OF these
points left in doubt which only be resolved By
ID But assuming existence this memorandum of the
contracts is 1t presented IN this record In such form IS
Court Of Equity would specifically execute il In the
TO the BILL the statute OF frauds relied and
writing required by the statute must be produced OF II lest
destroyed its contents be with reasonable
v this Court IN the case She'd samps
Sneed III ga memorandum of sale Of lands to be
contain the substantial terms Of the itself
in some other writing to which il John r. Is
and its terms embracing designation Of the parties
tns land 500 must appear vita IN the
than this cannot satisfy the OF the satuteIb
ment in this cass is proven but IS ssen Wit
do not speak Of the terms and conditions Of
Some Of the witnesses say the writirg Decd
tebond but agreement Of tia parties to convey bat
whether description CT the property agreed to
be exchanged the boundaries Of the lands such other de-
septon would reasonably identity IT, or the quantity Of
interest in TIE mines be exchanged such other requ
sites constitute contract for
the sale or exchange Of lands on which suit could be
brought against the parties signing it. certainly does not ap
the the agreement presen court Of Equi
ty would not execute and certainly less evidence Of h
will satisfy the demands the We infer the
terms Of the cOntrac-theymust be armstively proven
nd
enwaters rs snodgrass and Lyon, sneed l-Pepkns
James Hum. 1.
s. But admitting this agreement was such contract as
could be supported by the statute of frauds present.
Cd IN this record such an agreement as Court Of Equity
would specifically execute?
The specific execution Of contract is decrecd st the sound
discretion Of the Court Of Chancery but urAdcton
important and so iong and equsaty exercised that the
q II Il we're regulated by positive enaotment-Cocke vs.
Evans Yer. PSI ,2ss-SsmGel Hundreds heirs Alden
These principles clearly laid down in the case Of Cooke
Evans above cited and they been uniformly fol-
rate some Of them in this opinion.
'In order to entte party specific performance Of
contract says Judge Tury who delivered theopnion
Court cit must be fair certain, just equal in al it's parts
ISL specific performance Of contract win net be de-
creed, when is har unreasonable ITSELF when from
Torrance wSald be attended any particular hardshp
Perkins vs. Wright Hsr and MoHsn S24"
the specific performance Of contract must net
in tho beginning the performance OF Il may be
fairly and conscenOusy required" "Ths Court will
Of 1nfrness or if would Be hardship on the defendants
Hall vs. Ross Haywood 262" See also Trigg Reed
Hum 52e Blair and Genwaters administrators, Snod
grass and Lyon ] Sneed IS.
Applying these ncpes TO the under consideration
does present such state Of facts the Court
the active exercise OF this extraordinary power
Chanoery7 We think The contract made a
unproptious period for deliberate action Wild
est excitement the subject of mineral lands seemed
perVaded alike both parties the agreement while it
apparent the hopes and expectations greatly
disappointed it is due to the memory the other that
took undue advantage of him. The contract itself faint
ed with actual fraud. Both alike hays been de-
ceived in the present value of the copper lands The mines
were not and their real value then now merely
speculative McCary had them and could have
nothing about them from the representations
Of others Like the gambler he red his whole fortune In
single transaction upon uncertainty and time has shown
be lost The mines have yielded little nothing the
contrary they have proved continued loss,
amounting TO the Company than $4,000 s6O
IO0 without return. Their value still speculative
and in the opinion of all the witnesses be made
1tabewhout the employment Of heavy capital in their de-
geiopment Does such contract this commend itself
he conscience Of Court Of Chancery Is fair Just and
qual in all its parts, and for adequate CONSIDERATION I
hard and unreasonable in ITSELF and have the circumstances
materially changed since IL executed and above ALL
would its execution be attended with particular hardship
he defendants in the b These the tests By which
are governed and when applied the facts disclosed
his record, demand an afiTmrtivs answer.
Affirm the decree Of the Chancellor.
true copy. HILLIGAN, 4
Test: JudRs 4
NJ. L. PATTERSON, Clerk. Il