26 ‘ FEDERAL REPORTER.
Moomou v. Cmlrnm and others.
“ (Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island. October 22, 1884 ‘
1. Sraormo PERFORMANCE—PARTIES—TRUSTEE,8 SALE.
A bill of specific performance, filed by a purchaser at auction sale of land by
a trustee,is—founded upon a contract between complainant and the trustee; and
other parties in interest, who are strangers to the contract, should not be made
parties defendant.
2. Baum-Dnnaors rs TITLE—CONDITIONS or Sana.
In such a case, the printed conditions of sale govern the contract; and where
, they do not state any defect in the title, or purport to convey only the trustee';
riglht, title, and interest, the purchaser has a right to expect and demand a good
tit e. ·
3. Baum-Evrnnnom on Trrmr. ·
` It is not sufficient for the trustee to show the validity of the conveyance under
which he claims title, but he must go further, and make out a good title, where
such a title is called for by the terms of sale, and the cause may stand over for
the purpose of allowing the trustee to take further evidence as to title, and to
obtain possession of the estate. _
4. S».Ma—Ds:o1s1oNs or- Snrm Coun·r—-V.u.1nr·rr or- Dann.
As the federal courts are bound to follow the decision of the highest court of
the state in the construction of a state statute, the deed in question in this case
must be held valid; following Austin v. A. el- W. Sprague Manuf’g Oo. Index
, p. 12. V
In Equity.
A. at A. D. Payne and A. M. Cunningham, for complainant.
C. Frank Parhhurst, Jas. Tillinghast, Chas. Hart, Benj. F. Thurm-
ton, and A. B. Patten, for defendants.
Com, J. This is a bill for specific performance. The complain-
ant is the purchaser, at auction sale, of a certain estate in South
’ Kingstown, Rhode Island, known as "Canonchet,” from the defendant
Chafee, as trustee. The difhculty with the bill in its present form is
that it is brought against other defendants, who are strangers to the
contract, on the theory that, in determining the question of title, it
is proper, in an action of this character, to join all parties who claim
any interest in the estate, and thus bind- them by the decree. This
position, however, is not maintainable. This action is founded upon
a contract between the complainant and the defendant Chafee,
trustee. Strangers to that contract cannot properly be made parties
in a suit for its enforcement. This appears to be a well-settled and
fundamental rule of equity pleading.
When a bill is hled for a specihc performance, it should not be
mixed up with a prayer for relief against other persons claiming an
interest in the estate. Mole v. Smith, Jac. 490. The court as-
sumes jurisdiction in cases of specific performance of contracts, says
Chancellor Corrnnnsm in Taskerv. Small, 3 Mylne & C. 69, "because
a court of law, giving damages only for the non-performance of the
contract, in many cases does not afford an adequate remedy. But
in equity, as well as at law, the contract constitutes the right, and
regulates the liabilities of the parties; and the object of both pro-