Cheney v. Wagner
Cheney v. Wagner
Opinion of the Court
This case was before this court in 1884 and is reported in 16 Neb., 202, the decree of the court below to enforce the contract being affirmed. In that case it was alleged by Wagner in his petition, that after plaintiff purchased said contract as above mentioned, to-wit, on the 2d and 12th days of October, 1882, he paid the installments of both principal and interest, due in three and four years after said last mentioned date, at the office of Russell & Holmes, Te-, cumseh, Nebraska, where said notes are made payable,” etc. These allegations, with others in the petition, were duly verified by Wagner and supported by testimony, and were relied upon by the district court in rendering its judgment, and by this court in affirming the same. Immediately after the affirmance of the judgment by this court Wagner went to the bank of Russell & Holmes and withdrew the deposit upon which he had obtained the decree. Thereupon Cheney filed a petition to vacate the decree. Issues were joined, and on the hearing the court below rendered judgment as follows:
“And now, on this 24th day of December, A. D., 1887, the hearing hereof was completed over the objections and excepr tion of said Wagner, and the court finds generally for said Cheney, and that the decree herein at the April term, 1884, was obtained by said Wagner on the faith that he would let said Cheney have the $290 deposited with Russell & Holmes before that time; that the court then considered said $290 said Cheney’s money and as part payment for the land, and on this faitli thereof made said decree; that
“ It is therefore adjudged and decreed by the court, that if said Wagner shall pay into court, to the clerk of this court, said $290 for the use of said Cheney within sixty days from this date, with interest thereon from July 1, 1885, at the rate of seven per cent per annum, then said decree entered herein at the April term of this court, 1884, shall stand and remain in full force; but if said Wagner shall refuse to pay said money into court as above mentioned then it is ordered and decreed that said decree be opened up and vacated, and said cause stand for trial the same as if the same had not been entered.”
No litigant who, in .good faith, comes into a court of equity seeking relief, and alleging that he has duly per-^ formed all the conditions of the contract on his part to be performed, will pursue the course taken by Wagner in this case. Such conduct is entirely unjustifiable. A party obtains a decree of specific performance upon the representation that he has paid the consideration, or such part of it as was then due, to the person agreed upon in the contract to receive it, and immediately upon the entering of the decree withdraws the deposit. Such withdrawal of the money is, in effect, a waiver of a claim under the* contract — an abandonment of the contract, although perhaps not so intended by the parties.
The fact that the person receiving the deposit may still be liable therefor is not now before the court, and will not be considered.
Judgment accordingly.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Prentiss D. Cheney v. William Wagner
- Status
- Published