Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 Me. 431

Counce v. Studley

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided April 8, 1889

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1889-04-08

In equity. On appeal by defendant from a decree in favor of the complainant after hearing on bill, answer and proof. This was a bill in equity to compel specific performance of an award of referees, who made division of certain real estate between the parties, under an agreement to refer the matter of division to them. The premises belonging to the parties, in common and undivided, consisted of a certain lot of land, and also a barn thereon.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1927

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-04-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Walton, J.

¶1This is a bill in equity to obtain the specific performance of an agreement. The defendant insists that the bill ought not to be sustained, because the plaintiff himself is in fault in not performing his part of the agreement; that, by the terms of the agreement-, each party was required to execute and deliver to the other a good and sufficient deed to make effectual the partition of certain land anda barn; and that while it is true that the plaintiff executed and tendered to him a deed of the land, he never executed, and never offered to execute, or deliver to him a deed of that portion of the barn which was set off to him. To this the plaintiff says that the barn was personal property; that the defendant had no interest in the land on which it stood; and that no deed or other instrument of conveyance was necessary to vest the title in the defendant. To tins the defendant replies that he does not *434admit that he has no interest in the land; that, by the terms of the agreement which the plaintiff asks to have enforced, he (the defendant) is entitled to a deed of that portion of the barn which was set off to him by the referees; and that, if it be true, as the plaintiff claims, that the barn is on land wholly owned by him, that that fact alone proves the necessity of the defendant’s having such a deed as the agreement calls for.

¶2We are forced to the conclusion that the defendant is right. The agreement which the plaintiff claims to have enforced certainly entitles the defendant to such a deed as he claims. And, as the plaintiff did not execute, and did not offer to execute, such a deed, within the time limited in the agreement, nor, so far as appears, at any time since, but insists that such a deed is unnecessary, we think he is in no condition to insist that the defendant shall be compelled to execute his part of the agreement.

¶3The case shows that at the hearing in the court below, the plaintiff signed a paper, not a deed, affirming the doings of the referees, and presented it to the court. This was an irregular proceeding, and can have no influence in the decision of the cause.

¶4The decree in the court below was in favor of the plaintiff. We think the decree is clearly wrong, and that it must be reversed.

¶5Decree in the court below reversed.

¶6Bill dismissed with costs.

Peters, C. J., Danforth, Virgin, Libbey and Foster, JJ., concurred.
/81/me/431 · .json · Public domain