Marks

Marks v. Gates

Good Law
154 F. 481·2 Alaska Fed. 788·83 C.C.A. 321·1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4556
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 27, 1907No. 1,282California1,305 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The enforcement of a contract by a decree for its specific performance rests in the sound discretion of the court — a judicial discretion to be exercised in accordance with established principles of equity. A contract may be valid in law and not subject to cancellation in equity, and yet the terms thereof, the attendant circumstances, and in some cases the subsequent events, may be such as to require the court to deny its specific performance. In Pomeroy, § 400. it is said: “He who seeks equity must do equity. The doctrine, thus applied, means that the party asking the aid of the court must stand in conscientious relations towards his adversary; that the transaction from which his claim arises must be fair and just, and that the relief itself must not be harsh and oppressive upon the defendant.”

Said the court, in King v. Hamilton, 4 Pet. 311 -327, 7 L.Ed. 869 : “But this power is to be exercised under the sound judicial discretion of the court with an eye to the substantial justice of the case. When a party comes into a court of chancery seeking equity, he is bound to do justice, and not ask the court to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.