Sylvester v. Born
Sylvester v. Born
Opinion of the Court
The undisputed facts of this case, clearly stated in the report
Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at the costs of appellants.
Concurring Opinion
Opinion concurring,
The agreement was entirely one sided, as it tied up the appellants’ title, and yet allowed the appellee to repudiate the purchase without further liability than the mere forfeiture of the $50 deposit money. I am of opinion that time is of the essence of such a contract, and that a purchaser ought not to be permitted to enforce it in equity after the stipulated period.
The evidence in this case, however, shows that appellant waived the limitation as to time, and that his subsequent refusal to convey was au after-thought growing out of a dispute on another matter. On this ground, I concur in affirming the decree.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- FREDERICK SYLVESTER v. JOHN BORN
- Cited By
- 14 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. When time is not of the essence of the contract, either expressly or from the very nature of the subject, equity will specifically enforce an agreement to sell real estate, notwithstanding the vendee has not tendered performance within the time limited therefor, unless there has been gross laches on his part, or a change of circumstances rendering such enforcement inequitable. 2. An enhancement in the price of lands in the neighborhood, subsequent to the date of the contract, does not constitute such a change of circumstances, when it appears to have arisen from the making of a number of purchases by the vendee, and not from a general demand for property, and no perceptible rise is shown to have occurred during the period of the vendee’s delay. (a) The defendant g’ave to the plaintiff a receipt for $50, deposited to secure the consummation of an agreement for the sale by the former to the latter of certain described real estate, the terms of sale being stated in the receipt to be that the price, $6,000, should be paid in cash upon the delivery of a deed to the plaintiff within sixty days from date. (b) The receipt stipulated further that the deposit should be returned in default of such conveyance within sixty days, or, on failure to make settlement within said time, it should be forfeited and treated as liquidated damages; otherwise, to be treated as part of the purchase money and credited thereon in the settlement: 3. The contract set out in this receipt was not a mere unilateral agreement, nor such a contract as equity would not enforce specifically; the receipt having been signed by the vendor and delivered to and accepted by the vendee, it created a binding contract specifically enforceable by the latter, notwithstanding that it was not signed by him. 4. Whether lime was of the essence of this contract or not, equity would not so treat it when the parties themselves did not, and when the first intimation from the vendor that time was matex’ial came after a dispute on a collateral matter arising three days subsequent to the time limited, during which delay the contract was recognized by the vendor as still in force.