
    Reinicker vs. Smith. Smith vs. Reinicker.
    1 i i , TF. an«l 9 F, being sei2.ee! as „ tenants in eon.» iAom under the a<4 ? to direct descents, * with. S S, of and in {among: others,) * ) lot of ground, eon» , traoted separately f with G XI, and diet'd to convey to - him all their interest therein, on . the payment to each of them of l g3G0; and the mo- , nay being1 paid, [ possession of the lot vas delivered toGE, Mho after ’ the death of T and . B F, filed n bill in. ' chancery against „ S S, she bent# their heir, for a specific performanee of the con* . tract, 8 S, by her answer, alkfted . that both T & B_ I’ v. ere in habits of intern pe»*«nee„tmd i wue almost constantly in a state 1 of intoxication» That the Jot tvas contracted to be sold by them \shcn. in a state of in» toxieation, 01* when they Were incapable of transacting business, at a price great!} below its value, Set*. —Decrce-di that S S convoy 10 G Rs one undivided third rmt of the* lot of ftnniml; bu»; as to the contract of B I%on account of the satisfactory proof of h'simfceeikty. it ou^bt no.t to Ijí» tnfinyéd? and that G XI deliver to. or permit S S to take or en» iov two undivided third parts ox the lot of tyround* without lur run iundiniy *ht* con** si deration paid by him to B F
    ; j ] A tenant in com» mon, under th© act to direct descents, may ciis-* pose of his interest in any narlicnlar pomon of (lie estate so held in isocuupn,
    Cross Appeals from a decree of the Court of Chan, eery. The complainant, (Reinicker,) filed his bill of complaint against the defendapt, (Smith,) stating that Thomas 'Franklin, being seized of a lot of ground in Baltimore, agreed to sell all his interest therein to the complaiuant for the consideration of £l 12 10 0, which agreement was reduced to writing, and is evidenced, by the bond of con. veyance exhibited, dated the 20th of March 1794. That the consideration money has been fully paid. The bill further stated, that Benjamin Franklin, brother of Thomas, afterwards claiming to be possessed of an interest in the premises, agreed to transfer and convey the same, absolutely, to the complainant, for tiie consideration of g300, which agreement was reduced into writing, and is evidenced by the bond of conveyance, exhibited, dated the 29th of July 1794. That the consideration money lias been, fully paid; and the complainant, ever since the execution of the two bonds of conveyance, has been in the quiet, secure, and •unmolested enjoyment of the premises. That Thomas aud Benjamin Franklin are both since dead, and that Sarah Smith, the defendant, is seized and possessed of the inlieritauce and legal estate in the premises, by right of descent, and as heiress at law. That the complainant has frequently applied to her for a deed of conveyance of the: premises, which she has refused to execute, and has in-; atituted actions of ejectment for the recovery of the posc-es-! sion of the premises. Prayer for a specific performance of the agreements, and a deed of conveyance of the premises, aud for an injunction, &c. The answer of the defendant! stated, that her brother, James Franklin, was in his lifetime seized and possessed, and died seized and possessed, a-¡ inongst other real estate, of the lot of ground mentioned in' the bill, on the 31st of December 1793, intestate, leaving a sister, (the defendant,) and two brothers, Thomas and Ben-1 jamin, before named, and which two brothers, and the detendarit, oa the death viJqmes, became, under the act to direct . l , [ ’ . ' „ . . i 1 descents, entitled equally to all the real estate of which James (lied seized, subject to the provisions and regulations mentioned in that apt. That bqth her said brothers were in the habits of drinking strong liquor to great excess; and frotri the time of the death of their brother James, being freed from all restraint, and haying entirely in their power the means of gratification, and being, U is believed, encouraged in their excesses by persons who, wished to obtain advantages over them, they were almost constantly in a state of intoxication; and that when not actually drunk, they were scarce ever, if ever, free from the. effects qf the excesses to which they were addicted, and the mental imbecility arising therefrom. That their extreme fondness for strong liquor, and their anxiety to, obtain ft, also rendered them open to imposition from any person, who vyould furnish them with money by which they eould procure their gratification, however exorbitant the terms; and whatever contract they, or either of thenq might have entered into for the sale of lands, it is believed, originated either from their being in a state of intoxication at the time, or from the solicitude of acquiring money far flieir excesses, as they had no occasion to dispose, of any of their real estate to supply any necessary want,, That both her brothers died within eight months after the death of their brother James, and wifhin eleven days of each other, having fallen victims to their constant in*.-, toxication. That Benjamin died on the 10th, and Thomas. on the 20tí> of August, 1794. That the lot of ground mentioned in the bill, is situate i,n a v.ery valuable and improving part of Baltimore town, and contains an acre, of ground, and is believed, by the best judges, to be worth upwards, of ¿62000. That Beinickcr pretends to have the bonds of conveyance set forth,. b!*t they are not admitted to have been executed by her brothers, or either of them, or. that th§y received the alleged consideration; but if the. bond s were executed, she has no dpubt but they were executed by her brothers when in a state of intoxication, or when they were incapable of transacting business,, aqd that advantage was. also taken of their ignorance of the, value of-the properly; for the money alleged tp.have bee®, paid for the property is pot, equcilto the sixth part of the value of the lot. She admits.th;it ah& has, refused to convey the lot to Beinicker^ because she was and. is. of 0£\-.. iiiofl, that sh¿ is not bound In law or equity? to convey the Same. That she is willing! and lias offered to pay to him. any sum of money which her brother 'Thomas hath actually deceived front him.
    
      Testimony was taken and returned under á commission Which issued, and the case was argued before, and submitted to, the chancellor.
    Hakgov, Chancellor. The complainant applies for the performance of a contract made by a brother of the defendant, who has refused on the ground of the complainant’s having taken advantage of a man whom habitual intoxication had rendered Unfit to manage his own affairs, and an easy prey to ah artful designing man.
    The chancellor conceives that the privileges of drunkenness are pretty well ascertained, and that they might not to be extended. Has it ever been settled or understood, that because a man is addicted to strong dririk, no contract which he makes shall be binding, unless he, or those who come after him, shall think it eligible to abide by the bargain? If this were the case, a drunkard Would have advantages far superior to those which are enjoyed by the xnost prudent, shrewd, sagacious man. For instance, seven years ago he sold land for £5 an acre, which in the opinion of witnesses was at that time worth £7. It is now worth J320. He has not conveyed it. Being sued in chancery', he says “it is well known that I was every day drunk, and therefore the contract ought not to stand.” The chancellor, as he lias already said, considers the privilege to be well ascertained, and sufficiently extensive. If a man evidently has procured anotherto be intoxicated, in order that he might obtain an Unconscionable bargain of him, and has obtained it, this court will not, on application, hesitate to vacate the contract. But if a man, accustomed to strong drink, and even to be intoxicated every day, but notwithstanding possessed of reason, and the power of reflection, determines, with all the deliberation he is capable of, to sell bis property, offers it repeatedly for'sak, at length sells it at the best price he can obtain, to a man, against whom there is not proof of his having taken advantage of the hour of intoxication! if afterwards he professes himself satisfied with tl'.e bargain, and assigns a good reason for it— wfeea the bargain is. dear, explicit and certain — when it has been fully executed on the other side — the chancellor’ cannot think, that under such circumstances this court ought hot to enforce it. He has described the case before ° • . . . ■ -w ; i • i . lmn with respect to Thomas Franklin, ás appears to him from thé proceedings. Decreed, that the defendant, by á good deed, to be acknowledged and recorded according to law, give, &c. to the complainant,1 and his heirs, one undivided third part of the lot or ground mentioned in the bill, and the bonds from Thomas and Benjamin Franklins deceased, to tíie cómpláinárit.
    As to the contract of Benjamin Franklin, the chancellor is of opinion, that on account of the satisfactory proof of his imbecility, it Ought not tof be enforced by this court; but that the money to him paid by the complainant ought to be restored. Decreed also, that the defendant pay td the complainant the suni of $300, which was, it appears, paid by the complainant to Bénjarmh Frtinldin; deceased:? 'and that upon her executing and acknowledging the deed hereby directed, and payiffg to the complainant; or bringing into this court, to be paid to him, the sunt of $300, 'the injunction in tins cause isstied be dissolved; afid that the complainant be enjoine'd to', and shall' deliver toiler, or permit her to take or enjoy, two Undivided third parts of the lot or ground before rhentioned. From this decree' both the complainant and defendant appealed to' this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. j. Polk,- Buchanan, Nicholson, and Earle, J. by
    
      Key and T. Buc.hananj for Eeinicker;
    
    and by
    
      Martin and Harper, for Smith.
    
    
      ■ The counsel for Smith contended,- that the contracts ought not to be decreed to be specifically performed, because of drunkenness, and the inadequacy of pride. As to the first, they cited 2 Pow. on Cont. 226, 227. Osmond vs. Fitzroy, 3 P. Wms. 131, (note A.) Cory vs. Cory, 1 Ves. 19. 1 Fonbl. 68, And as to the latter, they cited 2 Pow. on Cont. 78, 153, 158, 221, 224; 225, 227. Chesterfield vs. Janssen, 2 Ves. 155. Pope vs. Roots, 7 Bro. Parl. Ca. 184. Clarkson vs. Hanway, 2 P. Wms. 203, Cole vs. Gibbons, 3. P. Wms. 293. Baldwin vs. Rockford, 1 Wils. 229. Attorney General vs. Syderfin, 1 Vernon, 224. Green vs. Wood, 2 Vernon, 632, and Phil
      
      lips vs. Buck, 1 Vernon, 227. They also contended, that a tenant In common could not convey less than his whole interest in the whole éstate which descends to him under the act t > direct descents, (1786, ch. 45,) as under that act the whole estaféis to be divided; and if the interest of a tenant in common, in a particular lot of ground of that estate, has been sold by him, the division could not be made; for it might be that where there were several lots, upon the division and allotment, the particular lot which had been so sold might be assigned to some other of the heirs.
    The counsel for Reinicker cited 2 Row. on Cant. 152 to 159, 144 to 145, 220, 228. 1 Row. on Cont. 30; Sugdon 167. They also argued, that it could not be' said that a tenant, holding, in common with others, property in different parts of the state, could not sell his interest in any one of the parcels lying in any particular place. That he might sell his whole interest in the estate, or his interest in a part only. That he might convey his interest m a particular designated property; and if he could convey, he could contract. He could not designate a particular part of the lot or tract of land, but he might sell his interest in any particular part. There could be no difficulty under the act to direct descents, where a partition or sale of the estate was directed. The purchaser could be admitted to participate, and might be placed in the situation of the tenant who sold to him. That if a judgment was rendered against a tenant in common, it would not be contended that a fieri facias could not be laid upon bis interest in a particular part of the estate, and that interest sold.
   The Court

affirmed that part of the decree of the court of chancery from which Reinicker appealed, with costs* And on the appeal by Mrs. Smith, the court reversed that part of the decree which decreed that she should pay to Reinicker §300, without costs in either the court of chan*eery or this court; and they decreed, that on her executing the deed directed, the injunction should be dissolved, and that Jleinickei be enjoined to, and should deliver to her, or permit her to take or enjoy, two undivided third parts of the lot of ground mentioned in the proceedings.

DECREE REVERSES IN PART.  