Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-16
&c 5.s.I- fws9 20 htOIolaeg llJlfof1 blA 900
aaa.sls stet sFufslpoS vvitt0pra .
Isl foHosss Fps gizl 9a... y. psA eieA2es -
n's tContfnued FROM 'rage Five.)

of the reservation cannot be EXTENDED
beyond its plain and obvious meaning
to include an obligation to build
bridge across the Maine Central loca
ton, 1t Is highly improbable that thu
defendant agreed not only to incur thu
great expense Of building bridg'
acrosc the land conveyed. but to dupll
cate the expense oy continuing TN
structure S2h feet further across th'
Maine Central tracks. 1t ID still more
improbable that the defendant would
make an absolute contract to do this
IRRESPECTIVE of any statutes then exist
ing or which might thereafter be enact
ed. designed in the interest of the safe
ty of public travel, to regulate and con
troll all such crossings over railroad To-
cations. See Cooling v. Railroad Co
"a Maine. 54s. If the plaintiffs demand
upon the defendant for performance
OF his contract had been accompanied
by proof that the right to construct
and maintain such bridge over, the
Maine Central location had been ac-
uu:red, and that that part of the cross
ing would We built by the plaintiff. or
Others, to meet the defendants Struc-
ture al the casterly line of the land
conveyed, without expense to the dc-
PENDANT, a materially iiffencnt question
might have been involved.
1t is true that the defendant SUISSE
uuently obtained majority OF tne
stock of the Maine Central Railroad
Company. and the plaintiff CONTENDS
that it thereby acquired the power ana
came under obligation to build the
bridge across the Maine Central loca-
ton. But this view cannot be ac-
cepted by the court If the DEFENDANT
had become the owner of the fee OF
the Maine Central location. that fact
would not change the language of the
contract or create an obligation which
did not previously exist. In such
case the rights of minority stockhold-
ers would be under the protection of
the law.
AS the case is presented therefore,
the reservation in the deed required
the defendant to do more than build
and maintain the bridge across the
land thereby conveyed.
The relief afforded by bill for
specific performance Of contracts is
purely equitable and is given as
substitute for the legal remedy Of
compensation whenever the remedy at
law is inadequate or impracticable;
and the granting Of the equitable rem
edy is uniformly deemed a matter of
sound judicial discretion, controlled by
established principles Of equity and
exercised upon a consideration of all
the circumstances of each particular
case.
mo positive rule can be laid down
by which the action Of the court can
be determined in all cases. In gen.
eral it may be said that the specific
relief will be granted when it is APP
parent from a view of all the circum-
stances of the particular case that it
will subserve the ends of justice: and
that it will be withheld when from a
like views it appears that it will pro-
duce hardship or injustice to either of
the parties. 1t is not sufficient to call
forth the equitable interposition of the
court that the legal obligation under
the contract to do the specific thing
desired may be perfect. 1t must also
appear that the specific enforcement
will work no hardship or injustice
Specific performance not being an
absolute right the fact that enforce
ment would be of little or no benefit to |
the complainant. and burden upon |
the defendant, is sufficient to consti- |
tute performance oppressive and It |
will not be given. Nor should the
contract be such that it's specific per-
less. 1t is an established principle of
vts Nfo
specific performance of any agree
ment where it would be a vain and
imperfect act, or where a specific per-
Torrance is from the very nature and
character of the agreement imprac-
ticable and inequitable to be en-
forced"
There Is still another rule respecting
this remedy uniformly recognized by
courts of equity, that is also applica-
bic to the facts in the case at bar.
1t has not been overlooked that by the
terms of the reservation the over
head street crossing was not only to
be constructed but always" main
tanned by the defendant '"The court
will decree specific performance only
when 1t can dispose of the matter by
an order capable of being enforced at
once. 1t will not ordinarily direct
the performance Of continuous duty
extending over number of years.
In the case at bar it is manifest that
performance Of the contract accord
ing to the terms of the reservation
would not be beneficial to the plaintiff.
but would prove imperfect and
nugatory that it would impose an I'M
necessary expense and burden upon
the defendant; and that since the
bridge must be maintained forever, no
decree could be made which could be
wholly performed at once, but must
be for the performance by the de-
PENDANT of the perpetual duty of main
tanning the bridge and necessarily in
volve the frequent interposition of the
court to consider the new conditions
that might arise during the progress
Of time.
1t is therefore the opinion of the
court that a decree of specific per-
Torrance would be unequitable and
ought not to be granted. and that the
certihcate must accordingly be,
Bill dismissed with costs.
Cumberland County. Daniel s. Graf
ram VS.. Fabius NJ Ray ct ais. Re-
script, per curiam.
inns case is before the law court on