Roberts v. Lovejoy
Roberts v. Lovejoy
Opinion of the Court
—Hothing can be more clearly settled, than that a court of equity will not decree the specific performance of a contract in favor of a party who refuses performance in the whole or in part. The plaintiff had refused to pay a portion of the purchase-money. It makes no difference that his refusal was sanctioned by the judgment of the justice; it was none the less a disaffirmance of the contract on his part, and released the other party from his obligation to perform. A party who seeks the specific performance of a contract must have performed, or must show a readiness to perform, the very contract in terms of which he seeks performance. He cannot disaffirm it in part, and at the same time hold the other party to the whole of his undertaking. The court will not aid him to
To entitle the plaintiff to maintain his action, he must show himself entitled to a specific performance as against his immediate vendor. This he has failed to do; and the judgment therefore cannot be maintained.
As the plaintiff has failed to make out his case upon the merits, it is unnecessary to revise the rulings of the court upon incidental questions.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause
Eemanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Edward Roberts v. John L. Lovejoy
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Nothing can be more clearly settled, than that a court of equity will not decree the specific performance of a contract in favor of a party who refuses performance in whole or in part. Where the plaintiff has refused to pay a portion of the purchase-money, it makes no difference that Ms refusal was sanctioned by the judgment of the justice; it was none the less a disaffirmance of the contract on his part, and released the other party from his obligation to perform. A party cannot disaffirm a contract in part, and at the same time hold the other party to the whole of his undertaking.