Fry vs. Hawley.-Opinion of Court. Fry to a specific performance of the agreement which he insists on, it must appear that the defendant, Hawley, had a remedy against him to compel performance of his (Fry's) part of such contract." It seems to be very generally and very properly laid down in the books that a court of equity will never decree a specific performance where the remedy is not mutual, or one party only is bound by the agreement. Parkhurst v. Van Courtlandt, 1 Johnson's Chancery Reports, 282, and authorities there cited. 2 Story's Equity,section 723. Fry had advanced $1,500; the boat has cost $15,000; onefourth of the cost is $3,750-where was Hawley's remedy to compel Fry to pay the difference, $2,250? It is contended on behalf of the complainant that the agreement on the face of it and by equitable interpretation is both certain and fair; that nothing is asked for by him which is either inequitable or unjust; that so far as the principle of mutuality is involved, the agreement on the part of the complainant is executed; that he paid the amount of his contribution at the time of entering into the contract. If this be so, if the contract on the complainant's part was executed by the payment of the sum of $1,500 at the time he entered into the contract, and we think it was, then surely there is no mutuality. An agreement must depend on the circumstances at the time, and cannot be made better or worse by subsequent facts. Morris v. Burroughs, 1 Atkyns, 404. Subsequent acts cannot be given in evidence to explain any ambiguity in a written contract. Chitty on Contracts, 106. 1 Atkyns, 404, 605. The debt contracted by Allen in building the boat was in nowise a liability of Fry. Hawley and Allen alone were bound for that debt. Fry was not liable for it. So far as we are able to discover, from anything which the record discloses, he was not liable over to Hawley. Fry, by the payment of his $1,500 into Hawley's hands, obtained a permanent situation as engineer, at $135 per month, and an interest in the steamboat and the profits, &c., in proportion Fry vs. Hawley.-Opinion of Court. to the amount he advanced. These were strong and, no doubt, the controlling inducements to make this advance, [and in construing a contract the court will look to the motives that led to it, and the object intended to be effected by it, Davis et al. v. Barney, 2 Gill & Johnson, 382,] and we do not deem a contract very onerous, by which a man gets $1,273 in a little more than one year on an investment of $1,500, and a permanent situation besides, as engineer, at $135 per month. Upon the whole, therefore, we see no reason to disturb the decree of the court below, and it is consequently in all things affirmed. Per totam Curiam. OF CASES ARGUED AND ADJUDGED IN THE Supreme Court of Florida, AT TERMS HELD IN 1852. By DAVID P. HOGUE, Reporter. VOLUME IV. No. 2. TALLAHASSEE: OFFICE OF THE FLORIDIAN & JOURNAL. Printed by Charles E, Dyke. 1852. JUDGES OF THE Supreme Court of Florida, DURING THE PERIOD OF THESE REPORTS. HON. WALKER ANDERSON, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON. LESLIE A. THOMPSON, HON. ALBERT G. SEMMES, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES. DAVID P. HOGUE, ATTORNEY GENERAL. JUDGES OF THE CIRCUITS. HON. GEORGE S. HAWKINS, WESTERN CIRCUIT. HON. JOSEPH B. LANCASTER, SOUTHERN CIRCUIT. |