Case Name: John Henry v. Robert Conn and Others
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1843-12
Citations: 12 Ohio 193
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Henry v. Robert Conn and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 12
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
John Henry v. Robert Conn and Others.
The laches of a vendee will prevent a court of Equity from interfering to compel a specific performance in his favor.
Where purchase money becomes due in the lifetime of the vendee,the infancy of his heir will not excuse delay in making payment so as to induce the court to decree performance against the vendor, after a great lapse of time.
This is a Bill in Chancery, from Brown county,
In 1817, the father of complainant and one Wiles contracted with Walter Baylor, to purchase 281 acres of land, then in the county of Adams. Baylor gave a title bond, obligating himself to convey by 'the first of May, 1818. A part of the purchase money was paid, and notes given for the residue. A division was made of the land, and Henry and Wiles each took possession of his share, and made some improvements thereon. ■ Some time after the money became due, Henry ■died, leaving the purchase money unpaid, and the complainant, then 194] an ^infant, his only heir at law. Baylor filed a bill to enforce his equitable lien for the purchase money, and the land was sold, under a decree of the court, to respondent, to whom Baylor afterwards conveyed the title, in 1822. To that proceeding, the present complainant was not a party. The proceedings were reversed in 1824. Wiles v. Baylor, 1 Ohio, 509. The complainant now seeks to have the share of his ancestor conveyed to him upon payment of his proportion of the purchase money, with interest, deducting rents and profits. The bill was filed, August, 1841, shortly after complainant attained the age of 21 years.
The defendant, by his answer, puts in issue the material allegations of the bill, and insists that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable ■consideration at a public sale, made by order of the court; that he paid the purchase money, and received the title under a judicial decree, and claims to be protected in his purchase. The answer also sets up a compromise between the defendant and the guardian of complainant, subsequent to the sale, and prior to the filing of this bill.
The case was argued for the complainant by Marshall and Penn and John Jolote.
Thomas L. Hamer, for defendants.
The court having avoided the expression of an opinion upon the points chiefly discussed, the arguments are omitted.

Opinion:
Birchard, Judge.
Several questions have been made in argument for complainant, which do not necessarily arise in the ease. As, whether the court had jurisdiction to decree a sale without service upon a minor defendant; and whether this claim may be barred by lapse of time ? To these points authorities have been cited ; but as the same questions arise directly in other eases now before us, it is better to waive the expression of an opinion until the questions are so presented as to render action necessary.
*In the view we take of this case, it is essentially a bill for the [195 specific performance of a contract against which time has run, if not as a bar, still so long as to change the entire equities of the parties, and to render it inequitable to enforce a specific execution, as" against either Baylor or his vendee. Instead of a prompt compliance on their part, the complainant and his ancestor lay by from 1818 to 1841, a period of twenty-three years, without an offer to complete the contract or tender of the purchase money. Under such circumstances chancery will not afford aid by decreeing a conveyance, but will leave the complainant to whatever remedy the law may give him.
The purchase money was due in the lifetime of his father, a circumstance sufficient to prevent the court from interfering, or allowing his infancy to vary the general features of the ease.
Bill dismissed.