Connell v. Mulligan

Citations

• 21 Miss. 388

Syllabus

<p>C. & M. made the following agreement, viz.: “ M. agrees to take into partnership said C. in a certain lot in the city of Jackson, for and in consideration of one hundred and sixty-five dollars, and that both parties are to hold the land in company ; M. promises C. to pay his half of the above sum, being eighty-two dollars and a half, on or before the first day of May next; and failing in doing so, shall forfeit his claim thereto if not paid within at least three months after said first day of May next.” C. paid the money, and took the title in his own name; M. in due time tendered his half of the purchase-money without interest to C., who refused it: Held, that the written agreement was not void under the statute of frauds; it specified the terms sufficiently to enable the court to decree its specific performance.</p> <p>Nor was it void for uncertainty, because the lot was not described ; the lot for which the money was paid was the one intended, and that being disclosed ' in the pleadings was sufficiently identified.</p> <p>Nor was M. under the contract bound to tender more than one half the purchase-money without interest; yet if he were, as no objection was made to the amount of the sum tendered at the time, but it was rejected on another ground, it would not avail as an objection afterwards.</p> <p>Nor was it any objection to a specific performance being compelled, that M. refused to pay C. one half the expense of inclosing the lot; under the agreement M. was not bound to do so.</p>