Marble Co. v. Ripley
Citations
- 77 U.S. 339
- 19 L. Ed. 955
- 10 Wall. 339
- 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1127
Syllabus
<p>1. Equity will enjoin one partner from violating the' rights of his copartner in partnership matters, although no dissolution of the partnership he contemplated.</p> <p>2. Where a person makes an entry on land owned by others jointly interested with him in working it, but which is held by these last subject to a right of entry and possession in him, for failure or refusal by them to fulfil certain conditions and stipulations about the products of the land, which they have covenanted to fulfil, so that primd facie his entry is a deforcement of the owners and an invasion of their rights' as sucb, the burden is on the party entering to show that his entry was justifiably.</p> <p>3. Whore a deed from one owner conveyed quarry lanas to his co-owners, reserving a right in the grantor, if the grantees did not furnish marble from them, to enter and keep possession- and take the marble himself, till the grantees should be ready and willing to fulfil the conditions of the contract on their part, an injunction which, after unwarrantable and illegal entry for alleged condition broken, enjoined the grantor from hindering the grantees from retaking possession and occupying and using the premises until the further order of the court, was held .too broad, and on appeal was modified so as only to enjoin against an entry for any cause theretofore existing; thus leaving the grantor to enjoy his reserved right thereafter untramelled.</p> <p>4. Where a corporation, by its own voluntary act, has bought lands charged by covenants inseparable from the deed by which the land was originally conveyed, and which were part of the consideration of the grant, •a court of equity cannot strike out a part of the covenants, because though originally intended to operate for the equal benefit of both parties, they have become in progress of time oppressive and burdensome to the grantee; or because the purchase would make the corpora-» tion partners with the grantor in working the land, whether they
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reversing an order for specific performance of an agreement to deliver marble which did not include a termination date
- “It is manifest that the court cannot superintend the execution of such a decree. It is quite impracticable.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Strong
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.