Court Opinion

ID: 9809757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:25:08.24177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:51.975114
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
I concur in the opinion written by Mr. Justice Oornior in this case so far as .it passes upon the title to the property contracted to be sold by Annie II. Campbell and Eliza W. Cronly and holding that they cannot make to the purchaser London a good and indefeasible title in fee.
At a former term we remanded the cause, to the end that the purchaser be made a party, which has been done. Having then treated the matter as a bona 'fide controversy submitted without action, under our Code, to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase land, and our order having been complied with, I see no reason now why the controversy should not be determined.
We have heretofore treated such controversies submitted without action upon agreed facts, where bona fide, as bills in equity by the vendor against the vendee for specific performance.
I do not agree, however, that the act of 1893, referred to in the opinion, will permit any kind of a dispute about the title *471to land to be brought before the courts under tbe guise of a “controversy submitted without action,” simply to obtain the opinion of the court upon an abstract proposition or a moot point in a matter where no present relief can be had or no final judicial process issued. -
As there is nothing -in the record which.impeaches the bona fide character of this controversy between vendors and vendee, I concur that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.