Burnap v. . Sidberry

MekeumoN, C. J. after stating the case: The specific performance of an executory contract to convey land cannot be insisted upon in a Court of Equity as a matter of absolute right. It rests in the discretion, not the arbitrary, but the sound discretion of the Court, controlled and governed by *309 principles and rules of equitable justice, applicable in each case as it arises, according to the facts and circumstances attending it, whether specific performance will or will not be required. The Court will look through the contract without regard to merely legal forms and technical advantage, to see what are its spirit and purpose, and whether the party demanding relief has on his part fairly and justly complied with its requirements of him, or whether he, in some cases, is ready, willing and able to do so. If it appears that the party suing has taken undue, unjust and inequitable advantage of the opposing party, specific relief wid not be granted; he will be left to his strict legal remedy, whatever that may be. The relief demanded is equitable in its nature, and he who asks the same, must himslf observe and be governed by the principles of equity, putting aside mere forms and technical advantage not affecting the substance of the matter. Herron v. Rich, 95 N. C., 500; Love v. Welch, 97 N. C., 200; Ramsay v. Gheen, 99 N. C., 215, and the cases there cited; Willard v. Taylor, 8 Wall., 557. Now in this case the vendor retained the title to the land which he contracted to sell to the plaintiff on purpose to secure the purchase-money the latter obliged himself to pay at the times specified. The latter paid a small part of it — ■ he ought to have paid the whole when it was due, but did not. After a long lapse of time, and after the death of the vendor, he managed to buy indirectly from, the administra-trix his notes for a mere-trifle, and by this action now demands that the heirs of the vendor shall convey title to the land to him, although it appears, and he does not deny, that he has paid but a small part of the purchase-money. If he thus got poseession of his notes and has a technical legal advantage, it is certainly unjust and inequitable that he should have the title of the land from the heirs of the vendor while he has paid but a fragment of the purchase-money, which, by the terms, spirit and purpose of the contract under which he *310 claims, was a lien upon the land until it should be fairly and fully paid. He bought his own notes for the purchase-money with the knowledge that he had not paid them, and that the debt, of which they were evidence, was justly a lien upon the land. He was not a simple buyer of these notes, he bought them with the knowledge that he was bound, in conscience, to pay them and thus discharge the lien on the land. A Court of Equity will not help him to avail himself of such inequitable advantage; it will not compel the heir to make title while the spirit of the contract remains unperformed on the part of the plaintiff. The defendants, in their answer, aver their readiness to make title to the land to the plaintiff when he shall pay the balance of the purchase-money, and they demand judgment that he be required to pay such balance within a time specified, and that in default of such payment the land be sold, etc. There is no reason why this might not be done. The plaintiff has brought his action, and thus submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. The defendants have answered, alleging their rights and demanding counter-relief. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and may determine and administer their respective rights embraced by the litigation. The judgment of the Court is clearly warranted by the pleadings and the facts agreed upon. There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.