Arizona weekly citizen., 1886-03-20
Imp.rt5nt Decision.

The case Of c. l.. Fletcher ys. Frank Schultz, for specific performance, re gently decided Dy ue County Court, vill be Cf interest to mining men. lle trial occupied about three days, each side pre,euting its view in Gn Ltie and exhaustive manner. Messrs. JoiTJTd, and Franklin were for flaint!fi arc Judge Alex. Campbell sld NIT. (. C. Stephens for the defendant.
 The facts oi the case were substantial ly as follows:
 On tine 27th Of November, lsSi. Frank Schultz. Mrs. Ray and L!ll;s GoldtTeo and Dr. \. II. Matas, bonded the Man raoth mine, Iars mill site and certain personal property, m PInGl county, to C. R. Fletcher. for the fuii sum of S23.' uOJ. of which sum Frank schultz, b-Iag e. half owner Iu ali the property bonded. would have been entitled to sil,uJJ as bis share. Ou ths day following the date of the bonds, and before the bonds had been accepted by C. l.. Fletcher, Frank Schultz, who wDs largely I.d.bt- eI tO bis partners, tLe GOigiTCrs, c.il, to Mir. Fletcher and, Es Lu incucCugli t0 MT, Fletcher Co accept the bonds ui the zIth, modified the b5ars, SO far gs Le Schdltz. was concerned, by agreeing Iu writing that lf Mir Elttc ler would pay Co the GUldtrees the sum O. SGUu, oL account Oi the debts ot Schultz, au 2 further pay bIm, Schultz, the suu Ci S.,gUJ ID ash, iu equal Ils'ailmeu's Iu j.. months of January. April and July, l>sJ that h-, ScE-.tZ, would accept tLlt m full payment for all of hls. ScLulIz'7, iu- terest Co saii property, lnis method oi payment differed from the meth a pro yiiei by an agreement 5etSeCH th, vendors the day p5uyICus.
 Schul'z accepted abe payments. uUie- L.s modified ssresmeut with Mr. F e.Ch CT, until the last installment became due, aui after Fletcher had deposited tine entire amount remaining due tu Schultz. under the original bond Hs modified by Schultz on the 18th day of November. lS>i, Schultz insisted that hs was entitled tD S2uUu more than ihs amogu; called for by the terms or hi modified agreement; and further Iu-lst- el that Le would consider the agfeeWeu; tO convey Et sn end unless tLls S2Upt was paid io him. He GeuIed al knuwl- edge ol the contents of the Iuctlusc agreement, and alleged that Fletcher had iuu1ulentiy induced him Go sIeu the same b. telling hIm hat unless be did EIgn it his creditors would tak, everything from him; iua. be had a second agreement, not III wnting, with Fletcher, to the effect inc tlctchei should wIthLuid $-UiU of the Du!cbas, price coming Co ham, which amount was Co be p..I Dy Fletcher upon the comp.e tiou ot the PU,cha~e and the pas-IuS oi deeds.
 The or.i aud d3'Em-aIry evijeac ia ;He case Cli ugt sunstaatiatu these a!lrgatIous ot GE. Schultz and the court -, fuuEG.
 Tine court further found tina. F,sjcher h-d substantially complied with ali hi- agreements with Schultz touchinL Scbultz's interest iE ihs property bond eI, and isc crd thBt the plaintiffs were entitled to a specific performance of the contract, ssd directed that Schultz con. vey hls interest iu the prOpeJty bonded.
 Two Of .E- most important questions cf law involved In the ease were whether pr not a hGEd tO convey real propeTy. executed only b. the parties Of the firs' part, no valuable consideration pEsslHE was a contract, or mere offer to sell. capable oi being modified 1T withdrawn before acceptance. The court decided it was only an offer Co ssil. and niso whether or not tue time within whicl iustaiiments Of the purchase price Were to ie paid, was uf the essence of the con tract. And in the present case II WIS decided, tha. nuder the circumstances of thi- Case, Mr. Fletcher having fuIly per formed sil bis agreements before Nr Schn.iz raised any objection. or claimed snv forfeiture, whatever delay there might have been was waived.