A PRACTICAL TREATISE OF THE LAW OF VENDORS AND PURCHASERS OF ESTATES. BY SIR EDWARD SUGDEN. BONE FIDEI VENDITOREM, NEC COMMODORUM SPEM AUGERE, NEC Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1836, BY E. & L. MERRIAM, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 350632 E. AND L. MERRIAM, PRINTERS. THE LAW OF VENDORS AND PURCHASERS OF ESTATES. CHAPTER X. OF INTEREST AND COSTS. SECTION I. Of Interest. I. EQUITY considers that which is agreed to be done, as actually performed; and a purchaser is therefore entitled to the profits of the estate from the time fixed upon for completing the contract, whether he does or does not take possession of the estate(a): and as, from that time, the money belongs to the vendor, the purchaser will be compelled to pay interest for it, if it be not paid at the day(b)(266). (a) See 6 Ves. jun. 143, 352. (b) See Sir James Lowther v. the Countess Dowager of Andover, 1 Bro. C. C. 396, and see 6 Ves. jun. 352. (266) See Hundley v. Lyons, 5 Munf. 342. See also, Mayo v. Purcell, 3 Munf. 243. In the case of a purchase, the vendee has the pos The same rule applies to a sale of a reversion—interest must be paid from the time fixed upon for payment of the (*)purchase-money, because the wearing of the lives is equivalent to taking the profits(c). This is so plain a rule, that no disputes could ever arise on it, if the purchase-money were not frequently lying dead; in which case it becomes a question, whether the loss of interest shall fall on the vendor or purchaser. If the delay in completing the contract be attributable to the purchaser, he will be obliged to pay interest on the purchase-money from the time the contract ought to have been carried into effect, although the purchasemoney has been lying ready, and without interest being made of it(d). But if the delay be occasioned by the default of the vendor, and the purchase-money has lain dead, the purchaser will not be obliged to pay interest(e) (267). The purchaser must, however, in general, give notice to the vendor that the money is lying dead(f); for otherwise there is (c) Davy v. Barber, 2 Atk. 490; and see Owen v. Davis, 1 Ves. 82; 3 Atk. 637; vide post as to the sale of a reversion before a Master. (d) Calcraft v. Roebuck, 1 Ves. jun. 221. (e) Howland v. Morris, 1 Cox, 59. (f) Calcraft v. Roebuck, ubi sup. ; and see Roberts v. Massey, 13 Ves. jun. 561. session of the land, in lieu of interest; and therefore, if there be a condition to repurchase, it may be done on payment of principal only, unless interest be expressly mentioned; because, otherwise, the vendee would have double satisfaction; viz: interest and the use of the land. Thompson v. Davenport, 1 Wash. 127. Where the vendor is indebted to the vendee, and the sale is made in order to pay the debt, the vendor must pay interest from the time the debt is liquidated, until he makes a good title; and the vendee is accountable for the rents and profits from the time the title is perfected, until the contract is specifically enforced. Hepburn v. Dunlop, 1 Wheat. 179. (267) See Wainright v. Read, 1 Des. 573. Wightman v. Reside, 2 Des. 578. no equality: the one knows the estate is producing interest, the other does not know that the money does not produce interest(g). Wherever, therefore, a purchaser is delayed as to the title, and means to insist upon this, he ought to apprise the other party that he is making no interest. But even if a purchaser gave such notice, yet if it appears that the money was not actually and bona fide appropriated for the purchase, or that the purchaser derived the least advantage from it, or in any manner' made use of it, the Court would compel him to pay interest. In Winter v. Blades(h), the terms of the contract are (*)not mentioned, but the other facts are thus stated: The bill in this cause was filed by the vendor of an estate, merely for the purpose of claiming interest on the purchase-money from the time the defendant, the purchaser, was let into possession. The purchase-money was 14,000l., and immediately upon entering into the contract, the purchaser called in a sum of money, secured by a mortgage, amounting to 12,4007., and upon entering into possession of the estate, gave notice to the vendor that he was ready to invest the purchase-money as he should direct, pending the investigation of the title. The vendor, hoping for an immediate conclusion of the purchase, did not answer that notice. The investigation of the title, however, occupied nine months. The banker of the defendant proved that during the nine months the balance of the defendant in his hands was never less than 14,000l., except during three successive days, when it was 13,8767.; and one other day, when it was 13,7961. The Vice-Chancellor said, if after notice given by the defendant, he had made no profit of the purchase-money, (g) Powell v. Martyr, 8 Ves. jun. 146. See Comer v. Walkley, post. (h) 2 Sim. & Stu. 393. |