We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
59
ant, against whom relief is asked. If the rule were otherwise a court of equity would bean instrument of injustice.
We submit that it would be a gross travesty upon justice if this court were to afford relief to the complainant, allowing the latter under its judicial decree to perpetuate complainant's own wrongdoing and to profit therefrom. A court of equity, no more than a court of law, will countenance fraud or wrongdoing; in fact it is elementary that equity delights in assisting those who have done equity to others, but consistently refuses to aid those who have acted in a fraudulent way.
The authorities and decisions are numerous, in fact universal, that a court of equity will never decree specific performance where there has been fraud on the part of the complainant, or breach of a material covenant or condition on its part.
We call attention to the following decisions:
In Ohio Fence Co. vs. Washburn et al, 26 Fed., 702 (Decision of the Circuit Court, N. D., Ills.), is the following, quoting from syllabus:
" A court of equity will not specifically enforce a contract at the instance of one of the parties who has repeatedly broken it, even if the other party has been guilty of the first breach.
If one party to a contract expects to have it specifically enforced against the other, he must act steadily in good faith, by observing its terms, whether the other party violates his covenants or not.
When a party to a contract has not kept his covenant, but excuses himself on the ground that the other party was guilty of the first breach, whatever remedy there is, is at law."
In Martin vs. Johnston, 6 Misc. (N. Y.), 310, it was said at page 314:
It is a settled rule of law that neither party to a contract can enforce it against the other without showing performance or an offer or willingness and readiness to perform on his part. In May vs. Schuyler, 11 J. &. S., 107, the Court said: ' When the right to compensation depends upon a special contract plaintiff must perform the undertaking