Wallace v.Maples

Ejectment — Equitable Defense.—When the plaintiff in an action of ejectment is the owner of the legal title to the property, and the defendants rely upon an equitable defense, they must, in order to prevent a re- - covery, make out a complete equitable title, and the right of possession thereunder.

Id.—Vendor and Purchaser—Breach'of Contract of Purchase—. Offset to Water Assessments — Failure to Cultivate Land — Tender of Purchase-money. ■—When a contract of purchase of land is conditioned upon the proper cultivation by the purchaser of land held under a farming lease, and upon the payment by him of all water assessments against the vendor, a breach of the contract in failing to pay some of the water assessments against the vendor is not excused by reason of the fact that he has an offset against the water company for indebtedness due him; and a failure on his part to cultivate the land as required will render his equitable rights of purchase under the contract unavailing as a defense to an action of ejectment by the vendor, and cannot be remedied by a mere tender and payment into court of the purchase-money.

Id.—Improvements by Purchaser.—The fact that the purchaser had sowed alfalfa and planted fruit-trees on the land purchased cannot defeat a recovery in ejectment by the vendor, if the purchaser fails to make good his equitable title by a performance of his part of the contract.

Id. — Evidence — Cultivation of Land — Instructions of Purchaser. — When condition of a contract of purchase as to the cultivation of land is broken by the purchaser, and evidence is given on his part tending to show that part of it was not broken because of the extreme dry weather, evidence as to his instructions to his men as to planting the land, provided the rains should come, is immaterial, and may properly he excluded.

Id.—Evidence—Legal Conclusion —Province of Court. — A general question to a defendant in ejectment who relies upon a contract of purchase as his defense, as to whether or not he had performed all the conditions and covenants contained in the contract, is improper, as calling for a conclusion and asking the witness to decide a question that is for the court alone to determine from the facts proved.

Id. — Evidence — Promise without Consideration. — Evidence of an independent promise by a vendor, made without consideration, to advance money to a purchaser to enable him to comply with the conditions of his contract of purchase, may properly be excluded as immaterial and irrelevant.

Id. — Jury Trial—Equitable Defense—Special Issues — Disregarding Verdict.—When the legal title of the plaintiff in ejectment is admitted, the findings of a jury upon special issues submitted to it by the court, where the matter to be tried is one of purely equitable defense, are not binding upon the court; and where there is evidence sufficient to sustain the action of the court in disregarding a verdict in favor of the defendant and rendering findings in favor of the plaintiff, its action will not be disturbed on appeal.