Jackson v. Norton (1856) · DecisionDepot

Jackson v. Norton

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1856Published

Before: Murray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that plaintiffs cannot seek equitable relief to avoid paying purchase money while retaining possession of the property without offering to rescind the contract and restore the defendant to their original position.

Issues

Whether a party can avoid payment of purchase money in a court of equity while retaining possession of the property without offering to rescind the contract.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of a proceeding in chancery to avoid the payment of the purchase money, without offering to rescind the contract and return possession to the defendant.”

Synopsis

An injunction will not lio to restrain the collection of a judgment against the plaintiff, on the ground that the judgment was for a balance of purchase money of land under covenant for a good title, while in fact the grantor had no title, as long as the purchaser against whom the judgment was taken, and who seeks to enjoin it, remains in possession.

The fact that suit in ejectment has been commenced against the judgment debtor by the real owner, does not entitle him to enjoin the judgment. He can only avail himself of the covenants of his grantor when he has been evicted, unless he offers to surrender the land to his grantor.

Neither does the allegation that the purchaser (plaintiff in equity,) has put valuable improvements on the land, and that he has paid a portion of the purchase money, and that his grantor and judgment creditor is insolvent and without visible property, take the case out of the rule. ^

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray. Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

[189]The Court below properly refused the injunction. The ease made by the bill does not come within the rule established by this Court, when this cause was here before, (see 5 Cal.) The plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of a proceeding in chancery to avoid the payment of the purchase money, without offering to rescind the contract and return possession to the defendant. The allegation that they have made valuable improvements, does not talce the case out of the rule. They have had the use and enjoyment of the land, and the improvements may be a fair offset for the rents and profits. Certainly, a Court of Equity should not permit a party to avoid the consequences of his contract, while he is in possession, which possession may ripen into a title, unless he offers to put the opposite party in statu quo.

Judgment affirmed.

Jackson v. Norton

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief