United States Circuit Courts, 1800

Hollingsworth v. Fry

United States Circuit Courts · Decided October 15, 1800 · Paterson, Peters

4 U.S. 298 (United States Reports)

Opinion of the Court

Paterson, Justice.

— The great rule of interpretation with respect to deeds and contracts, is, to put such a construction upon them, as will effec*300mate the intention of the parties, if such intention be consistent with the principles of law. In the present case, there is no difficulty in coming at the intention, as it is clearly and forcibly expressed in the agreement, and is capable of receiving one construction only. The time of payment is made a substantial, and not a mere formal, circumstance ; it enters into the essence of the contract; and therefore, must be observed. (a) The court cannot decree against the legal and express stipulation of the parties themselves. The situation of the parties, the nature of the property, and the speculative spirit of the project, were powerful inducements for drawing up the agreement, in the plainest and strongest terms, so as to leave no doubt as to the intention, and to render the time of performance a cardinal point.

Again, if the agreement would admit of another construction, the complainant, under the circumstances of the case, comes too late to avail himself of it. The door of equity cannot remain open for ever. The complainant did not make a tender of the money, until a lapse of five years after the termination of the time limited by the contract. So far was he from using legal diligence, that he has been guilty of gross delay. (b) In cases of the present kind, equity will not suffer a party to lie by, until the event of * «1 the *experiment shall enable him to make his election, with certainty J of profit one way, and without loss any way. This mode of procedure is unfair, contrary to natural justice, and in exclusion of mutuality.

There is a strange mixture of legal and equitable powers in the courts of law of this state. This arises from the want of a distinct forum to exercise chancery jurisdiction; and therefore, the common-law courts equitize as far as possible. Whether, if relief be proper, the supreme court of this state could have extended it to the complainant, it is unnecessary to determine. Thus *301much, however, might and ought to have been done, on the part of the complainant ; he ought, when notice was given for him to show cause why judgment should not be entered, to have laid the equity of the case before the judges of that court, who, if they thought proper, might have deferred the entering of judgment, or ordered it to be entered on terms, to wit, to be vacated on payment of the awarded sum, by a limited period. But the complainant, although he had previous notice, did not avail himself of an appeal to the discretion of the court; but suffered judgment to pass against him, without making any objection.

There being no equity in the complainant’s case, his bill must be dismissed, with costs.

а) Although it has been intimated in some cases, that time could not be made of the essence of contract, even by a positive stipulation of the parties, there has been no decision to that effect. In other and later cases, it has been admitted, that parties may make time of the essence of the agreement, and whether they have done so must depend on all the circumstances. McCrelish v. Churchman, 4 Rawle. 26. The principle seems to be firmly established, that time may be a circumstance of decisive importance, but that it may be waived by the conduct of either party. It is incumbent on a plaintiff, whether at law or in equity, to show that he has used due diligence in the performance of his part of the contract, or that if he has not, his negligence arose from some just cause, or has been acquiesced in; but it is not necessary for the defendant to show any particular inconvenience; it is sufficient, if he has not acquiesced in the negligence of the plaintiff. Ibid. In a deed conveying land, and reserving a rent-charge, the grantor covenanted to release and discharge the rent, if the grantee should, within seven years, pay a certain sum; it was held, that after a lapse of eighteen years from the time prescribed, he could not call upon the grantor to perform his covenant. In re Henry Shoemaker, 1 Rawle 89. So, where a judgment in ejectment was entered by agreement of the parties, to be released on the payment of a certain sum, on or before a certain day, time was considered the essence of the contract, and the money not having been paid, on or before the day, the judgment became absolute and indefeasible. Gable v. Hain, 1 P. & W. 264. See also Jordan v. Cooper, 3 S. & R. 564; Roberts v. Beatty, 2 P. & W. 63; Shaw v. Turnpike Co., Id. 454. But see Watson’s Adm’rs v. Lewis, 2 Yeates 467; Decamp v. Feay, 5 S. & R. 323.

Time, generally speaking, is not essential in equity; but considerable delay, without sufficient reason to account for it, will be considered satisfactory evidence of an abandonment. Bellas v. Hays, 5 S. & R. 443.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.