Light Street Bridge Co. v. Bannon

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a creditors’ bill filed by the appellants for themselves, as well as for all other creditors of Francis Lawrence, deceased, for the purpose of subjecting his real estate to the payment of his debts. It is alleged in the bill, and appears from the proof that Lawrence had not the legal estate in the lands sought to be sold ; his title as alleged, was equitable only, acquired under a contract of purchase from G-reenbury P. Sappington, who was made a party defendant. The bill alleged that Lawrence in his lifetime had contracted with Sappington for the land which is described, and had the possession of the same long before and at the time of his death, that he had paid the purchase money therefor, and was entitled to a deed of conveyance from Sappington.

That they are advised the said land ought to be subjected to the payment of the debts of Lawrence, his personal estate being alleged to be insufficient. The bill prayed a discovery from the defendant Sappington of the terms of the contract under and by which the intestate became possessed of the lands mentioned, what amount, if any, of the purchase money remained unpaid at the time of the intestate’s death ; and further prayed that the lands be sold and the proceeds be applied ¹⁴² to.the payment of the balance of the purchase money, if any remained unpaid, and the remainder be applied to the payment of the debts of the deceased. Bannon, the administrator of Lawrence, and his widow, now the wife of John Sharp, together with her present husband, and Charles M. Lawrence the only child and heir-at-law of the deceased were made parties defendants. Sappington being summoned, answered the hill, but exceptions to his answer being filed it was ruled tobe insufficient and he was required to answer further.

Afterwards, by leave of the Court, the ajrpellants filed an amended and supplemental bill, on the 2nd day of October,- 18T4. Sappington died before making further answer, and his heirs-at-law have been made parties by a bill of revivor. Further proceedings were had which need not here be noticed particularly. Proof was taken chiefly for the purpose of establishing the alleged contract of purchase by Lawrence, and the cause being submitted, the Circuit Court was of opinion that there was a failure to make out a case entitling the complainants to a specific execution of the alleged contract; both for the want of certainty of averment, and because of a failure and insufficiency of proof, and dismissed the bill.

In this decision we think there was error. The averments contained in the original and amended and supplemental bills, we think, are sufficient if supported by the proof, to entitle the appellants to relief. The contract of purchase by Lawrence is distinctly charged, the lands which are the subject-matter of the contract are- designated and described, and the possession of Lawrence under the contract, and his occupation thereof for a long period, and till the time of his death, as owner, with the knowledge and consent of G-reenbury P. Sapping-ton. The only particulars in which there is a failure to state the terms of the contract of purchase, are that the price ¹⁴³ at which the lands were purchased, and the amount of the purchase money actually paid are not fully stated.

Ordinarily in cases of application for specific performance, the bill is filed by the purchaser, or some person in privity with him having knowledge of the terms of the contract. In such case, Courts of equity require that the terms of the contract shall be fully and particularly stated, so that it may appear to the Court, to possess all the elements of fairness, mutuality and certainty in all its parts, without which specific execution will not be decreed. But in this case the complainants are strangers to the