Case Name: Isaac Perkins against Nathan S. T. Wright
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1793-06
Citations: 3 Md. 324
Docket Number: 
Parties: Isaac Perkins against Nathan S. T. Wright.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 3
Pages: 324–327

Head Matter:
COURT OF APPEALS,
JUNE TERM, 1793.
Isaac Perkins against Nathan S. T. Wright.
THIS was an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery dismissing the bill of the complainant.
The bill states that Wright being seised in fee-simple of 1,800 acres of land, lying partly in §>ueen Anne’s coun ty, in this state, and partly in Kent county, in the state of Delaware, being part of two tracts of land, one called “ Wright’s Hope’’ and the other called “ Wright’s Forest,” on the 31st of October, 1778, made a contract with Perkins, in writing, by which he sold and agreed to convey to the said Perkins and his heirs, in fee-simple, whenever demanded by him or them, clear of all encumbrances, the said 1,800 acres of land, in consideration of three pounds common current money of the United States of America, for every acre of the said land to be conveyed to the said Perkins, in consequence of the contract and agreement aforesaid. That by the said contract, the said Perkins agreed to pay 1,000/. of the said money in hand, and at the time of making over the land, to give three several bonds to the said Wright, his heirs, &c. for the payment of 4,400/. common current money of the United States, to wit, one bond for the payment of 1,000/. of said money, on or before the 1st of February next after the date of the said contract; one other bond for the payment of 1,000/. like money, on or before the 1st of November, 1779, and one other bond for the payment of2,000/. like money, on or before the 1st of November, 1780. That the said Perkins,, at the time of making the said contract, paid 1,000/. current money of the United States, the receipt whereof the said Wright acknowledged in and by the said contract; and afterwards, on the 22d of January, 1779, he paid to the said Wright, 1,430/. 2s. current money aforesaid ; that he paid said Wright’s order to his son for 845/. current money aforesaid; that he hath frequently applied to the said Wright to convey the said land, particularly on, &c. when he tendered to him 2,11 Si. current money aforesaid, in payment, &c. which the said Wright refused, &c. alleging that the said money had depreciated, and he would forfeit and pay the penalty of his bond of conveyance, in which he had bound himself in the penalty of 10,000/. current money aforesaid; that the said Wright had borrowed money of James Tilghman, Esquire, and mortgaged a part of the said land in the Delaware state, which he paid off in continental money, alleging that he had sold the mortgaged premises to the said Perkins for the same kind of money.
The answer of Wright states, that he had been imposed on by the said Perkins, at the time of the contract, who alleged that continental money was at that time worth and of as much value as gold and silver, and under that belief, the said Wright, who resided remote from and out of the way of getting more correct information, agreed to sell and convey his land as stated in the bill; that he placed perfect reliance on what the said Perkins informed, but which he soon after discovered to be incorrect, &c.; that the land was, at the time of the sale, admitted by the said Perkins to be worth, and the said Wright would not have taken less than, 3/. specie per acre; that he is willing to convey the said land upon receiving the real value thereof, agreeably to the true meaning of the contract.
Hanson, Chancellor,
{May term, 1/90,) having heard counsel on both sides, and read the bill, &c.; “ And forasmuch as it is an established principle in chancery, that a decree for the specific performance of any contract whatever is not a matter of course, but rests entirely in the discretion of the court, upon a consideration of all the circumstances ; and the chancellor being acquainted with no precedent of a decree for such performance, where either the contract appeared hard or unreasonable in itself, or where, from a material change of circumstances since the contract, the performance would be attended with peculiar hardship to the defendant, it being the invariable practice of the court in such case, to refer the complainant to his remedy at law; and the chancellor being of opinion, that not only the continental money stipulated to be paid by the complainant was at the . time of the contract of a value much inferior to the worth of the land, but from the subsequent depreciation of bills of credit, the payments actually made by the complainant- were of much less value than could have been in the contemplation of either party at the time of the contract; and the chancellor being of opinion, that although in all contracts for the said bills to be paid at a future day, each party might be considered as speculating fairly on their fluctuation in value; the seller of the land relying on his own judgment for obtaining an advantage from the appreciation, and the buyer in like manner relying for the depreciation of the said bills, this court ought not to give its aid towards enforcing the specific performance of any speculating engagements ; but the parties should be left to the proper constitutional tribunal for estimating damages ; and the chancellor being further of opinion, that the principles laid down by the late chancellor in the case of Rawlings &? Canden, are strictly applicable to the present case, and uniformity «£ decision in the same court being considered of such importance to the quieting of men’s minds, and the safety of their property, that it ought never to be departed from, unless justice shall manifestly require otherwise. It is, therefore, this 14th day of August, 1790, &c. adjudged, 8cc. that a specific performance of the contract mentioned in the bill be not enforced by this court.” He also decreed a repayment of the money, with interest, which had been paid by Perkins to Wright, &c.
The complainant appealed to the court of appeals.
.Duvall, for the appellant.
Martin (Attorney-General) and Jenings, for the appellee.

Opinion:
The case was entered abated, in the court of appeals-, Fay reason of the death of both of the parties.