Page:St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Beidler.pdf/15

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
45 Ark.]
MAY TERM, 1885.
31

St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Beidler.

isfied that he actively and knowingly contributed to produce that misunderstanding. His conduct in procuring the certification of the map is not irreconcilable with good faith and fair dealing. It is true the division superintendent was not aware at the time, of the purpose for which his signature was wanted, nor even that a negotiation for purchase was pending. But we are not prepared to say that it was Beidler's duty to inform him. He had never undertaken to do this. And the land commissioner would not have been misled if he had made due inquiry on the subject.

4. Specific
Performance.
When land
encumbered with
mortgage.
There is some slight evidence in the record that the land was subject to a deed of trust made by the Company, the legal title being outstanding in the Union Trust Company, of New York, and that it was customary to send forward these contracts to have the trustee join in the sales. If the land is mortgaged, still the Company has an equity of redemption which it may sell and convey. And if Beidler chooses to accept the land in that condition, certainly the Company has no cause to complain.

Let the decree be affirmed.