Orestes v. Galanis
James Orestes v. Costas Galanis.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Young, J.
The question raised by the defendant’s exception to the court’s refusal to vacate the decree is not, as he appears to think, the same as it would be if the agreement were not in writing. In such a case relief is refused unless that would operate as a fraud on the plaintiff.
Muir v. Bartlett, ante, 313. But when the agreement is in writing, relief is granted as a matter of course, if the court finds that compelling the defendant to convey would be equitable.
Norris v. Clark, 72 N. H. 442;
Pierce v. Morse, 65 N. H. 196;
Ewins v. Gordon, 49 N. H. 444; 36 Cyc. 552.
• In this case there is such a finding, and if the evidence excluded would have shown that the plaintiff had lost but little by the defendant’s refusal to convey, that fact in and of itself has no tendency to prove that it is inequitable to compel him to do as he agreed.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.