PULLMAN PALACE CAR
co.". (,'ENTIUL TRANSP. CO.
PuLLMAN PALACE CAR CO. t7. CENTRAL TRANSP.
«(Jircuit Dourt, E. D. Pennaywania. March 2, 1888.)
INJUNCTION-AGAINST PROCEEDINGS AT LAW.
Equity will not interfere by injunction to restrain proceedings at law when all the matters of defense are as available at law as in equity, although complicated and more difficult of presentation.
'ACCOUNTING-BETWEEN PAR'tU:S NOT HOLDING FmUCIARYRELATIOis TO EACH OTHER-EvIDENCE.
In an action'between parties not holding a fiduciary relation towards each other, based upon a right to ali account of receipts and expenditures, the defendant cannot be called upon to produce vouchers or furnish a detailed statement.
In Equity. The complainant's bill was for an injunction to restrain the defendant from prosecuting at law a suit began by it against the complainant to recover rent reserved in a lease executed by them in 1870. Upon a motion for an injunction the court dismissed the bill. E-lward S. Isham, Gemge F. Edmwnds, Samuel Dickson, and Richard C. Dah, for complainants. . John G.John,son, for defendant.
BRADJ,EY, Justice. Upon the renewed application for an injunction in this case we do not think that any new facts are presented which that should induce us to change the conclusion formerly reached, the injunction should be denied as regards the action brought for rent ' accruing prior to the 1st day of July, 1886, when the complainants gav. notice of their election to determine the lease and contract of 1870. '1'he ground of relief set up in the bill is that when, at the expiration of the contract with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, in January, 1885, the complainants contemplated giving notice of their election to terminate the lease, in view of the reduction of net revenues below 'the amount of. the rent reserved, the defendants, through their agents, inducedand persuaded the complainants to adopt the other alternative of paying thetn an equitable sum or share of the net revenues that might be realized, and as should be agreed upon; and that the complainants consented to this, and acted upon that understanding in concluding a new contract with the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The complainants contend' that, after this arrangement had been gone into, it was inequitable and uujust for the defendants to claim and sue for the original rent. This ground was insisted upon on the former motion, but it is contended that since then the facts have been more funy elicited by the proofs, and that it has been shown that the complainants actually gave notice to terminate the lease, but were induced to withdraw it, and to proceed upon the other alternative. Th9ugh this is not the way in which the case is presented in the bill, we do not see that it makes any
)Reported by C. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
- material difference in the case as far as the application for an injunction is concerned. "If We fubts contended fot are a good ground for relief at all, they are defense at law as in,equity. They are set up for the purpose of showing that the condition subsequent created by of.which was to cause the coythe eighth article of the .. anant to pay $264,000 annum to cease, has been accomplished. Proof that that ctmditionhas beena:ccomplished WOllld be a legal defense to ... ,Whether, tbepj.et!tqii)g§ Wthe action are adapted to tpe 'introduction this kind of proof; we not know·., That makes no difference in:reference to this application. If the'pleadings are defective, and the time. for amendmeJ;l; has not expire9., the proper Il.mendments can be supplied. The difficulty of proving the fact that the net revenues are less than $264,000 a year on account of the complication of the ters involved, we do not regard as, by any means, such as to draw the caseinto.equity. It is not a q\1estionof account arising upon a fiduciary relation, and does not· involve the: principles of such an account. It is . necessary, it is true, for the complainants to show by their receipts Rnd expenses that theil10et revenues are less than $264,000, but that may be done by a mode of proof very far short of that required from a trustee or agent in rendering an account to his beneficiary or principal. We do not suppose that the defendants would be entitled to call for vouchers, or to be furnished with a detailed statement. ,The motion must be denied.
, · '-, , , ,. 'I '.-, , ' "
PASCAULT 'lJ. COCHRAN.
«(Jircuit (Jourt, D. Delaware. March 2, 1888.)
A niortgage on land in Delaware, given as additional security for the pur· chase price of land in Maryland, was dated July 28, 1871, and recitl!d that the deed from the vendor and the purchase-money mortgage bore date both, and were delivered both, on thAt day. Held, on bill to foreclose the Delaware mortglip;e, that the recital as to da.tes was not conclusive. and, it being shown that both mortgages and the deed were delivered, all three simultaneously, August 0, 1871, parol evidence was admissible to show that. the three instru..' ments formed one transaction.,
2. I>:mED"':'OF BARGAIN AND SALJll"":'OMISSION OIl' BARGAINEE-CONSTaUC'TION. In; Delaware. where the common m:ode of assurance' is II deed of bargain and sale operating under the statute of uses, the words in II deed, and sells,unto the sole and separate use of the !laid P.," will be construed, in eqility,when the intention of tl;le parties is clear, to mean" bargains and sells untop.., and to the only proper use and behoof of the said P.;" and such a <lead will .re.formed to. earn> that intention into e f f e c t . .
. .A contained the usual covenant for "furiher assurancea·." recited,tHat grantors' title was'under a certain will and proceedings in pariition , in court. As security for the purchase. money a mortgage was taken on the land; and, as security for that mortgage, the purchaser's father gave a mortgage on other land of hie o.wn. After the deed and were delivered, it was discovered that the orphans' court had no jurisdlCtion to
POR VENDRE-.,-RELEASE BY NEW