The national Republican., 1867-07-26
THE COURTs.

EQuITY CouRT-Chief Justice CARTER
The court met At ten O'Clock.
The confederation Of tho casos Of Towers vs..
Williams, and Williams OF al. vs. Florence, Of
which We published summary yesterday, were
resumed; the argument Of the case having boon
postponed until that timc. The case involves
TIE title TO q three-story brick house at the
northwest corner Of Pennsylvanis avenue and
Seventeenth street, upon which Mr.. Towers has an
insumbrance, Mr.. Florence contract Of pur.
chase, and Of which The other parties are present
owners.
Mr.. Stanton, for Williams ct al, contend.d
that the contract Of sale alleged to have been
been executed sets forth no specific time al
which the sale was to be made, and that no
steps TO perfect the purchase having been taken
by Mr.. Florence, he, entering as tenant pre-
vious TO the contract, was TO be considered as
holding the house under the contract 10 rent, and
not under tho contract to sell; and that, there
fore, he should be charged with rent since the
time he ceased paying In 1896. He had not
beon ready, diligent, prompt aud eager as the
law required Of q person asking the advantage
Of Q contract Then, too, u was evident Mrs.
Dorsey, ono Of the heirs, had not signed the
contract, and Of course II could not be enforced
against her.
Mr.. Davidge replied, at 6rst, to the argument
In the frat case made on Wednesday by Mr..
Brent, and afterwards to tho argument Of Mr..
pthutOu Jubt mhuts 4uc point NJ issue IN the
first case was tho errors assigned In Q bill Of 70.
view TO the first decree in the case, which Mr..
Davidge took up seriatin. The error that the
final decree was taken at the same term an or
der pro eo,yesso against ono Of the parties was
also taken, Mr.. d. did not consider was error at
law. An order pro eonfssso was merely tech.
nical movement to speed the cause In the clerks
ONCE. Even II taken too soon the decree was
not void, and could not be affected by an assign.
ment Of error which did not 70 to tho merits.
The error assigned that q sale Of an undivided
moiety Of the premises was directed, thereby
preventing Its full value from being realised,
Mr. d. held TO be no error. II might be very
convenient to suspend the creditors remedy un.
I'll the whole property could be sold, but II was
not matter Of right.
Replying to Mr.. Stanton, Mr.. Davidge con.
tended that Mr. Florence had proven a contract
Of purchase, Of which he had performed more
than was obligatory upon him to do. He had
shown all the promptness tho law required, and
II there was any negligence II was on the part Of
the other party. Mr.. D. admitted that Mrs
Dorsey was not bound by the contract, which she
had not signed but hold that as P. II. Dorsey,
who did sign, held an estate for her life In the
property, his interest vested In Mr. Florence, who
would DO entitled to q deduction from the price
agreed upon, proportionate to the value Of the
interest Of Mrs Dorsey.
Tho Court held that, as the contract showed
that Mr.. Florence occupied the house under q
contract to purchase, which was not carried out
the hrst movement required was the tender of
deed to Mr.. Florence, and as no deed had boen
rendered, he could not DO expected to account for
the rents and profits. On tho other hand, he had
actually paid no portion Of the purchase money
and had enjoyed the fruits Of tho purchase.
Under these circumstances, II was Just for him
to pay interest. II tho parties to the second
| cause could come to an agreement as to trans
| fer, the interest Of Mrs. Dorsey, who certainly
was not at sll bound by the contract, the whole
case might 30 thus equitably adjusted.
The counsel agreed to q consent decree upon
the basis laid down by the court, Il being un.
dsrstood that Mr.. Florence should have credit
for half Of all moneys paid out for the benefit
of the whole property, and tho oose was ad.
journed until Saturday for the purpose Of enter.
Ing such decree on that day as might have been
previously agreed upon between the parties.
94L Dryer VS.. Cryer. Order Of publication.
S72. Spurrier vs.. Heiskoll. Sale effected and
report thereof referred to tho auditor.
874. National Bank Of Metropolis vs. Spraguo
Order for clerk to invest funds In Uutsd State,
bonds.
1913. Greon VS.. Harris. Order appointing a
| guardian nd litem. -
The court thon adjOurned I'LL this morning.