The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1906-03-08
IN FAVOR OF MARY CHRISTMAS.
Decision of the Law Court in the Camden
Case.

Mary Christmas Barakat) is dead,
but her many friends in this vicinity,
some Of whom were familiar with the
facts of the case will be interested in
the following rescNpt received last
week from the Law Court. The case
was Mary Christmas VS.. Olive a. Cot
ton, and the rescript by Justice Pow
ers is as follows:
There was evidence in this case that
on Nov. 1, 1908, in consideration Of
$780, paid to the defendant by the plain
tiff, the defendant sold to the plaintiff
the charred remains OF a building
standing upon leased land, and agreed
to pay the rent for the balance of the
term which the lease had run, viz,
until April 10, 1910. AT the time of
the trade the defendant gave the plain
tiff a written bill of sale Of the building
but the plaintiff claimed that the lease
Defendant denied that she was to pay
the rent and claimed that the lease was
assigned and delivered to the plaintiff,
who was to pay the rent. Upon these
issues the testimony was conflicting
in believing the evidence for the plain
tiff rather than that for the defendant.
The defendant failed to pay the rent
and on Dec. l, 1908, as soon as the
plaintiff learned of this, she, through
her attorney, wrote the defendant, say
ing that the defendants contract had
not been fulfilled, that she, the plaintiff,
rescinded the contract, and demanded
back her 5000. The plaintiff had never
taken possession of the building, but at
the time of the trade gave "a mortgage
on it for $500 on 80 days to raise part of
the money paid the defendant. This
mortgage was paid when due and dis
charged in December, 1903, and this
suit was brought Oh Feb. 20, 1904.
The failure of the defendant to keep
her contract gave the plaintiff the right
to rescind and recover back her money.
She did all that was required. Title to
personal property passes without any
writing. 1t was not necessary that the
plaintiff should execute written sale
of the building back to the defendant.
The bill of sale which the plaintiff re-
ceived she rendered back at the trial
and this was sufficient. She had right
to keep it as evidence of the contract
for use at the trial. The nature of the
property was such that it did not ad
nit of being offered or rendered back.
The defendant neither before nor at the
trial made any objection that the build
ing had been encountered by the plain
tiff, and the mortgage upon it was dis
charged, and the plaintiff notified the
defendant that the contract was
rescinded, long before the suit was
brought. At the date of the writ the
defendant has been placed in statu quo
and the contract rescinded The jury
found that the lease was not assigned
to the plaintiff, and the finding was
justified by the evidence. Not being
assigned to her, no legal title to it vest
ed in her, and she had nothing to do, or
offer to do, in regard to it in order to
place the defendant in statu quo.
The defendant failed to fully perform
her part of the contract. The plaintiff
rescinded it, and did all that was neces-
sary to restore the parties to their orig
inal position before bringing suit. She
was therefore entitled to recover back
what she had paid.
Motion Overruled.