GAJNES v. MOLEN. 27
this controversy, as developed by the evidence. There seems to be two
parties in the county of McDowell actuated by feelings of bitter personal
hostility towards each other, arising out of local affairs. A court of jus-
tice is not the proper forum in which such personal and local controver-
sies should be carried on under the forms of legal procedure, which are
designed and adopted for the purpose of preserving the courts of justice
from official malfeasance, securing the government against fraud, and
promoting the common good and general welfare of society. If these
local circumstances and personal hostilities had been known to the court
as fully as they now appear, this rule would not have been granted m
1ts present form, but a mode of procedure more convenient, and less ex-
pensive, would have been adopted, by referring the matter of complaint ,
to the district attorney for his investigation and report.
The personal and oihcial conduct of the respondent, as shown by the
evidence, does not, in all respects, deserve the approbation of the court,
but I readily accord to him his legal rights; and, with a kindly admoni-
tion to so conduct himself in future as to avoid even the appearance of
evil, this rule is discharged. Let the proper order be drawn.
Ganvns and Wife v. Motniv and Wife. °
(Circuit Oourt, E. .D. Arkansas. January, 1887.)
Srncrirrc 'PmnronmANcm—ConmAcr ro Convm I4AND—CONBIDERATI0N—PlJ’BLIC
L.m1>s-—Com>aomsm. _
A The plaintiff, who, by reason of havi1§ purchased, 1uclosed, and cultivated
a tract of land within the limits of the ot Springs reservation, had an equi-
table claim to a patent likely to be recognized by the United States, executed
a deed of conveyance of a subtract to t e defendant. who had occupied and
built on it, with the plaintifE’s permission; the defendant at the same time
executing an agreement to reconvey an undivided half of the subtract to the
plaintiff within 30 days after the title should be acquired from the United
tates. The deed an agreement were executed in settlement of certain con-
troversies between the parties, and it was agreed that the plaintiffshould
furnish the evidence necessary to enable the defendant to obtain the title
from the United States. This the plaintiff did. Held, in a suit to compel
specific performance of agreement to reconvey, that there was neither want
nor illegality of consideration, and that plaintiff was entitled to a decree}
In Equity. . I
Dams Jr Rose, for complainants.
J. J. Murphy, for defendants.
BREWER, J`. This is an action to compel the specific performance of
ap contract to convey an undivided half of real estate in Hot Springs. It
appears that on the fifteenth of May, 1876, the plaintiff William H. A
Gaines executed a quitclaim deed to defendant Joseph Molen, and on the
lThe law favors the settlement of disputed claims, Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St.
L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 546, and note; and upholds them as considerations of
the mutual covenants of the parties, Id; Baumier v. Antiau, (Mich.) 31 N. W. Rep. 888;
Bichardson dt B. C0. v. Independent Dist., (Iowa,) 31 N. W. Rep. 871.