Fardy v. Williams

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill in this case was filed for the specific performance of a contract, alleged to have been made by Emily J. Fardy, through her agent, Franklin Kone, with John B. Williams, through bis agent, James Thruston, for a lease of certain property in the city of Baltimore, known as “ Fardy’s Wharf,” for the term of six years, with a further agreement that at its termination Williams was to have the option of an additional term. There seems to have been no question that the property belonged to Mrs. Fardy, and by her answer she denies she ever made or authorized such an agreement. There is no proof that she ever signed the alleged contract.

It is averred that a certain Franklin Kone executed the agreement as her agent, and he states that he had no authority from her to sign the agreement as agent for her. It is well settled by all the authorities, that the interference of a Court of Equity to decree specific perform ⁵⁰² anee of contracts depends upon the exercise of a sound discretion and fair consideration of all the circumstances, of the alleged contract, and the conclusiveuess of the testimony to establish it, as well as the nature of the property involved. . Mundorff vs. Kilbourn, 4 Md., 459. It is not a matter ex débito justifies, and it is an indispensable preliminary that the contract must be made out by the clearest and' most satisfactory proofs.

Geiger vs. Green, 4 Md., 476. When the contract is definite in its terms and provisions, and established by unequivocal testimony, and the party complaining of its non-performance has no adequate remedy at law, by way of compensation in damages, a Court of Equity would not hesitate to afford relief; otherwise it will refuse to interfere, and leave the party to his legal remedies. Sullivan vs. Tuck, 1 Md. Ch. Dec., 59.

Without considering the collateral or incidental questions discussed by the respective counsel, from a careful examination of