Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/555

 516

trees upon it, to the millionaire for $4,500, its value, and gave him a deed which was duly recorded. In the state where the land was situated, as in most other states of the Union, public policy had required the passing of a statute, called the " Statute for the prevention of Frauds and Perjuries," which, in substance, declared that a contract for the sale of an interest in land was worthless unless there was some note or memorandum of it in writing signed by the party to be charged with its obligations. It was the clear duty of the courts to refuse to enforce a contract for the sale of standing trees unless it was proved by such a writing. The wicked millionaire wished to oppress the Frenchman with this statute. He brought his bill in chancery against the Frenchman, in which he set forth that the latter had not given the security promised, that he was insolvent, that his contract with the owner was " verbal only and invested the Frenchman with no title to or legal in terest in the standing trees," that he had bought the land and trees, that the cutting of the trees would cause irreparable injury to the proposed park, 'wherefore he prayed for an injunction against the removal of the trees by the Frenchman. The chancellor granted the injunction? The Frenchman an swered that it might be true that he had not given the security, but he had done what in chancery would do just as well, he had sent the owner a letter from the wood agent of the railroad company to which he expected to sell the wood, saying that the agent was very busy, but he expected, about " week after next," to meet the Frenchman and make a contract for the sale of the wood, in the meantime, as they understood each other, he could go on with his work. This letter the owner had not returned, and, by failing to do so, had led the Frenchman to believe that he was satisfied,— that the contract, having thus been partially per formed, was taken out of the statute, and

although the Frenchman knew that the millionaire " claims such contract to be void under the statute ol frauds, and pur chased with a view of asserting such claim," still, the Frenchman claimed the protection of chancery. On the coming in of this answer, the chancellor dissolved the injunction; the mil lionaire, as he had a right under the rules of chancery to do, dismissed his action and paid the costs. Then he commenced a new action, in which he set forth his claim that the contract was void under the statute of frauds with great prolixity and diffusion, and another chancellor granted a second injunction. The Frenchman an swered as before, the case was referred to a master who reported the facts as they are herein above stated, the chancellor made a final decree, making the injunction permanent, and giving judgment for the wicked millionaire, that the Frenchman's contract was void : and the Frenchman ap pealed from one to the full bench of seven chancellors. Now to anybody outside the fog and murkiness of chancery, this was a perfectly clear case. The contract was not in writing, there was not a scrap of writing around it, except the wood agent's letter, and he had no legal interest in the property. The statute de clared such a contract to be opposed to the public policy of the state, and void. To a plain man it would seem to have been the plain duty of the appellate court to affirm the chancellor's decree and say no more about it. But chancery calls upon suitors to open their eyes and behold the wondrous things out of its law. The appellate court did not affirm the decree; it reversed it, and the grounds of that reversal a lawyer could not guess if he went on guessing until dooms day. Before entering upon the difficult work of explaining the decision, I should say that, there being no necessity for it whatever, the