Court Opinion

ID: 8636007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:45:21.059204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:55.809952
License: Public Domain

LOIVELL, District Judge.
I leave out of view all question of fraud, because it is clear, and is not now denied, that no imputation whatever can be made on the good faith and honest dealing of the defendant. There is little difficulty in ascertaining most of the facts of the case. George W. Prentice was in bankruptcy; his assets, according to his own account, consisted largely of his interest in the wharf, and his claim against Theodore. One of the motives for giving the joint mortgage for the separate debt of George probably was that Theodore had been receiving advances from George. The mortgagees were threatening a foreclosure. The creditors had no one to represent them, and found it not easy to raise the money to redeem the estate. Theodore had no means for that purpose. Under these circumstances, it would not have appeared an unreasonable contract, if the parties had been in a position to make it, that Theodore should relinquish his equity, in consideration of a release of his indebtedness to George. This would give the creditors the whole equity to work with in raising money to redeem the mortgage, instead of only one-half of it, and would free Theodore from his debt. Such a contract as the parties contemplated would not have been unreasonable at the time. But, as I shall presently show, they made a unilateral contract, by which Theodore alone was bound.
' In the mean time, the immediate exigency has passed, and the land has risen so much in value, that there is not only ample security for the mortgage debt, but more than enough beyond it to pay the largest amount that the creditors can possibly claim of Theodore. The prayer for a reconveyance is resisted, on the ground that equity does not regard time as essential in a contract for the conveyance of land. This is true to a certain extent and in a general sense; but the exceptions are numerous, and include cases in which the contract or the remedy is not reciprocal, or in which a considerable change in the value of the land has taken place. Both these circumstances are found in this ease.
First, as to mutuality. Here was no complete contract of sale, so much land for so much debt. The amount of the debt was in dispute, though it was not then denied by Theodore that he owed something considerable, perhaps $8,000 or $9,000, instead of the $15,000 which George’s books charged him with. He appears to have been willing to make such a sale, but the defendant was not ready to bind himself absolutely, and the whole, transaction amounted to an offer on the part of Theodore to convey his land at any time within six months, in discharge of the debt, if the creditors of George, acting by the assignee, chose to discharge him. This offer he might have retracted at any time before the other party had accepted it, if he had not bound himself at law by giving a deed of the land; and even after that he might, perhaps, retract in equity. But this is unimportant, because the offer was neither accepted nor retracted within the six months. I am not aware that a court of equity has ever extended the time for the acceptance of an offer.
Granting that the plaintiff was bound for six months, as he held himself to be, the other party was bound to nothing excepting to return the land if the release were not furnished. It was argued that when Betteley himself became the assignee, and the six months had elapsed, the plaintiff was ipso facto discharged of his debt. If Betteley had been acting in his own right, there would be force in this argument; but I am not ready to decide that an assignee in bankruptcy can bind the assets entrusted to him, by any mere neglect of this sort. If, therefore, the situation had been changed in the reverse direction,— that is, if the land had fallen in value, and Theodore had become possessed of other property, so that a debt against him would be valuable, — there is no authority under the bankrupt act for holding that the assignee would have lost his remedy against Theodore, by his merely retaining the land beyond the six months.
This unilateral arrangement was made by Theodore Prentice for the convenience of the creditors, to enable them to avail themselves of his offer immediately, or at any time within the period agreed on. The time given was enough, and more than enough, for a uecision; and the creditors did not bring themselves within the exact terms of the offer. As values stand now, the offer was one which *1270would not be made by a prudent man. I see no reason wby a court of equity should refuse to carry out the exact agreement of the parties, especially as the plaintiff offers to pay all the pecuniary consideration there ever was for his offer. He asks that his conveyance may be treated as a mortgage to secure his debt to the estate, which is all that equity can ask under the circumstances.
It is by no means accurate to say that equity takes no note of timo. The general rule in equity, as at law, is, that parties may make tlieir own bargains, and must keep them. Equity is very unwilling that an estate should be forfeited by mere neglect to keep an appointment for the payment of money at the day agreed on. The early application of this doctrine to mortgages, by which an equity of redemption was created, was eminently just, and was acquiesced in; though of late years all persons have agreed on a form of mortgage which very much modifies ihis equity, by giving the mortgagee a power of sale on short notice. Its application to a failure to pay rent at the day was just, and was adopted by the common-law courts in Massachusetts, when there was no court of chancery in this state. Equity carries its objections to a forfeiture so far, that, in an ordinary contract to buy and sell land, it is unwilling that a good bargain shall be lost by unpunctuality; but, in this class of casos, the exceptions embrace more cases than the rule. Indeed, the doctrine itself is exceptional, and is explained by Mr. Justice Story, quoting and approving Baron Alder-son, as being only this, that equity has power to carry out what seems to be the true intent of the parties; and if there are no circumstances to show that either party would suffer any hardship, or that any equitable consideration existed against it, the court will presume that the sale was the main tning, and the precise time of completing it was not essential. Story, Eq. Jur. g 770. note 1. “But, • then, in such cases,” the learned author proceeds to say, “it should be clear that the remedies are mutual: that there has been no change of circumstances affecting the character or justice of the contract; that compensation for the delay can be fully and beneficially given,” &c. Section 770.
That time was not considered very material by the parties when they made this arrangement, I think highly probable. If either party had preferred to fix five months or seven months, rather than six, no doubt the other would have agreed to it. In that sense, time was not essential. But the change of values is so very considerable, that it has become inequitable for a court to make a new contract for the parties, and no court will do so after such a change. Brashier v. Gratz, 6 Wheat. [19 U. S.] 528; Barnard v. Lee, 97 Mass. 96, per Gray, J., explaining Goldsmith v. Guild. 10 Allen, 239; Story, Eq. Jur. § 776; Adams. Eq. 88.
Decree for an account and reconveyance, on the plaintiff's paying what may be found due by Theodore Prentice to the bankrupt’s estate.