Case Name: SUYDAM AND JACKSON v. MARTIN AND OTHERS
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-08
Citations: 1 Wright 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: SUYDAM AND JACKSON v. MARTIN AND OTHERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
SUYDAM AND JACKSON v. MARTIN AND OTHERS.
Deed of land under contract of sale — trustee—interest of a party — in a bill for a specific performance, the money due should be brought into court.
Where one takes a conveyance of land under contract of sale to another, of which he has knowledge, be holds the fee in trust for the purchaser.
Where a party seeks relief in chancery, the case must show that he has an interest in the subject.
If a specific performance of a contract is prayed for, the money admitted to be due, should be offered, and if refused, brought into court.
In Chancery. The hill makes the following case : That Martin, in 1821, by parol contract with one Thompson, sold him a lot m TJnionville, for fifty dollars, to be paid in two years, and put him in possession under the contract; that he built on the lot, and made improvements to the value of eight hundred dollars.
*In 1826, Thompson sold to Palmer, by consent of Martin, and [385 Martin accepted Palmer for the purchase money, instead of Thomp-son. Palmer went into possession, and contracted to buy an adjoining piece of ground, at a stipulated price, but without any fixed time of payment. He took possession of this piece, enclosed it, and the ■same year conveyed his interest, by deed, to the complainants to pay .a debt he owed them, and put them into possession.
Martin never called for the purchase money until August, 1832, and then agreed to wait sixty days longer for it. Within the sixty days, the money due was tendered, and a deed demanded, but Martin had before this called for the purchase money, and deeded to Harper, with full notice. Palmer has always been ready to pay, now offers to pay, and prays that Harper be held as trustee of the ■complainants, and decreed to convey, or pay for the improvements.
Harper’s answer admits the first contract between Martin and Thompson, but asserts ignorance of the other contracts, possession, ■or the extent of the improvements. It admits that before he took the deed, he heard a rumor that Palmer had conveyed to some New York creditors to secure a debt, but supposed the conveyance was to defraud him out of an award of one hundred and eighty-eight dollars, which he had against him, and which is still due. Before hie took the deed, Martin told him there was no written contract for the land, and he. could get no pay. Denies the tendér, but of fers to convey, if the complainants will pay his award, &c. Aver© that since the transfer to the complainants, Palmer has collected money pretended to be included in the assignment, and applied it to-his own use. Grave notice to Palmer that he was going to take a, deed, but he did not pretend to any claim.
It was in proof, that Harper took the deed the 20th August, 1832, with knowledge of Palmer’s contract and possession. On the 28th August, 1832, Palmer tendered Martin two hundred and eighty-two-dollars and ninety-two cents, in full, of the purchase of fifty dollars and interest from the last of December, 182L In August, 1832, before the deed to Harper, sixty days were given to Palmer to raise the purchase money.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
Harper took the deed, with full knowledge-of the sale by Martin to Thompson, and by Thompson to Palmer, and holds the title in reference to those contracts as Martin did. There-is no proof that the complainants have any interest in the matter j. if they have, and would ask a performance of the contract, they 3861 *should tender the purchase money, and bring it into court. There is no money brought in, or in fact offered, and no right to a. decree appears in the complainant.
Leave was asked and given to amend.