Jerningham Drury vs. Able Hill, Charles Hill, Joseph Hill, and Morgan Hill
CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Papers) Jerningham Drury vs. Able Hill, Charles Hill, Joseph Hill, and Morgan Hill, 1799, MdHR 17,898-1459 [MSA S512-2- 525, 1/36/1/58]
CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Record) Jerningham Drury vs. Able Hill, Charles Hill, Joseph Hill, and Morgan Hill, 1804, Liber 57, pp. 309-310, MdHR 17,770 [MSA S517-69, 1/35/02/007]
Drury bought Birkheads Parcells and Birkheads Meadow from Susanah Hill, shortly before her death. After her death, her children (the defendants) claimed the land was theirs by right of succession.
Drury sued to take possession. References case in General Court, Sarah and Susanah Hill v. Priscilla Simmons, c. 1794, to recover part of Birkheads Parcells and Birkheads Meadow; that case was proably
the one which later ended up in the Court of Appeals in 1796.
Case dismissed by court, 12 Nov. 1804. See decision below. Drury represented by Philip Barton Key.
Decree:
In Chancery, October term, 1804
This case standing ready for hearing, and being submitted; the bill, answer, and other proceedings, were by the chancellor, read and considered.
The application of the complainant is for a decree, to impose the execution of a contract for land. The evidence exhibited by him is an instrument of writing, stating that whereas Susana Hill is entitled to
the benefit of a judgment for certain land &c &c she binds herself under a penalty to convey to the complainant one half &c &c Consideration as mentioned in that instrument none appears by the answers to
have been by her received, and it does not appear that the complainant undertook to do anything on his part. On what ground then shall this Court decree a conveyance. It is by no means the rule of this court
to enforce a contract as a matter of course. To obtain a decree for that purpose, it is necessary to show that the contract was mutual fair understood, and on a proper consideration. Numerous are the
contracts, which this court, on application has refused to enforce. And whether or not an agreement in any case shall be enforced is always a matter of sound discretion. No instances can be produced of
inforcing a contract like the on in the present instance. But in all such instance the party has been left to his remedy at law, if any he has, subject perhaps to the future interferences of this court.
It is therefore by Alexander Contee Hanson, Chancellor, and by the authority of this court, adjudged, ordered, and decreed this twelfth day of November eighteen hundred and four that the bill of the
complainant be dismissed but without costs.
N.B. The Chancellor thinks proper to mention that the remedy (if any there be) is plain. The complainant may sue at law for services and money lent or he may sue on the aforesaid instrument. It is
possible that in the present suit he may not have made the best of his case. He has depended on the said Instrument and on such answers as he has obtained. If there were any other proceedings relative to the
land between him and Mrs. Hill, he ought to have stated them. On the papers before the chancellor it was impossible for him to reach a different decision.
