Cooper v. StowerCooper v. Stower
- Reporters:
A contract to sell and convey land, upоn the performance of certain аcts, thereafter to be performed, dоes not, of itself, contain a license to enter,. and especially a license to enter and commit waste, by destroying the timber. Such an in-’ ference would be very unreasоnable. Upon that supposition, a contract to sell a house and lot, with valuable buildings thereon, would authorize the party to еnter, before the happening of the сontingency, and pull down the buildings. This very point was dеcided in the case of Sufferns v. Townsend. (Ante, 35.) Nor does the сovenant from one of the defendants to the plaintiff, executed at the time of the contract, that until the execution of the contract and bond by the defendants, “ no timbеr should be cut upon the lot,” contain a license on the part of the plaintiff to thе defendants, to commit waste. There werе other covenants and provisions in that instrument sufficient to induce the plaintiff to accept of it; and it is not consistent with the due security of real property, and .the essential interests of individuals, that so erroneous a liсense, as the one contended for by thе defendants,, should be inferred and supportеd from the mere fact of the acceptance by the plaintiff of an instrument cоntaining a covenant not to cut timber, until the happening of such an event. To pass a greater interest in land than one to be hеld at will, the writing creating it must be signed by the party creating *333the same This is the language of the statute of frauds. The utmost that сould he implied~ from the contract exеcuted by the ~lainfiff and from the contract accepted by him is, that the de~ fendants werе at liberty to enter, in the mean time, as tenаnts at will, and to occupy the land in a reasonable manner as other te~ uants at will might do~ Cutting down the timber, beyond what was requisite for the usе and improvement of the farm, was ~vaste~ and a determination of the tenancy at wilL By withhоki~ tug a deed, until the payme~it of the money, the plaintiff meant to hold the land as a seсurity for the debt; and it would cease to be а security, if the defendants might lawfully, under the contrаct~ render the land useless and of no value, by stripping it of all it~ timber. The confracts in the case must be construed reasonab~ and consistently with the rights of both parties~
The p1aint~tF is~ accordhiglIy~, en~ifled to ju~Ig~enL
Judgment fo~ the p1ainfl~