The seller sues in equity for specific performance.The loss falls upon the buyer.35 That is probably the prevailing view, though its wisdom has been sharply criticized.36 These variant conclusions are not dictated by variant considerations of policy or justice.They are projections of a principle to its logical outcome, or the outcome supposed to be logical.Equity treats that as done which ought to be done.Contracts for the sale of land, unlike most contracts for the sale of chattels, are within the jurisdiction of equity.The vendee is in equity the owner from the beginning.Therefore, the burdens as well as the benefits of ownership shall be his.Let me take as another illustration of my meaning the cases which define the rights of assignees of choses in action.In the discussion of these cases, you will find much conflict of opinion about fundamental conceptions.Some tell us that the assignee has a legal ownership.37 Others say that his right is purely equitable." 38 Given, however, the fundamental conception, all agree in deducing its consequences by methods in which the preponderating element is the method of philosophy.We may find kindred illustrations in the law of trusts and contracts and in many other fields.It would be wearisome to accumulate them.
The directive force of logic does not always exert itself, however, along a single and unobstructed path.One principle or precedent, pushed to the limit of its logic, may point to one conclusion; another principle or precedent, followed with like logic, may point with equal certainty to another.In this conflict, we must choose between the two paths, selecting one or other, or perhaps striking out upon a third, which will be the resultant of the two forces in combination, or will represent the mean between extremes.
Let me take as an illustration of such conflict the famous case of Riggs v.Palmer, 115 N.Y.506.That case decided that a legatee who had murdered his testator would not be permitted by a court of equity to enjoy the benefits of the will.Conflicting principles were there in competition for the mastery.One of them prevailed, and vanquished all the others.There was the principle of the binding force of a will disposing of the estate of a testator in conformity with law.
That principle, pushed to the limit of its logic, seemed to uphold the title of the murderer.There was the principle that civil courts may not add to the pains and penalties of crimes.That, pushed to the limit of its logic, seemed again to uphold his title.But over against these was another principle, of greater generality, its roots deeply fastened in universal sentiments of justice, the principle that no man should profit from his own inequity or take advantage of his own wrong.The logic of this principle prevailed over the logic of the others.I say its logic prevailed.The thing which really interests us, however, is why and how the choice was made between one logic and another.In this instance, the reason is not obscure.One path was followed, another closed, because of the conviction in the judicial mind that the one selected led to justice.
Analogies and precedents and the principles behind them were brought together as rivals for precedence; in the end, the principle that was thought to be most fundamental, to represent the larger and deeper social interests, put its competitors to flight.I am not greatly concerned about the particular formula through which justice was attained.Consistency was preserved, logic received its tribute, by holding that the legal title passed, but that it was subjected to a constructive trust.39 A constructive trust is nothing but "the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression." 40 Property is acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest.Equity, to express its disapproval of his conduct, converts him into a trustee.41 Such formulas are merely the remedial devices by which a result conceived of as right and just is made to square with principle and with the symmetry of the legal system.
What concerns me now is not the remedial device, but rather the underlying motive, the indwelling, creative energy, which brings such devices into play.The murderer lost the legacy for which the murder was committed because the social interest served by refusing to permit the criminal to profit by his crime is greater than that served by the preservation and enforcement of legal rights of ownership.My illustration, indeed, has brought me ahead of my story.The judicial process is there in microcosm.We go forward with our logic, with our analogies, with our philosophies, till we reach a certain point.At first, we have no trouble with the paths; they follow the same lines.Then they begin to diverge, and we must make a choice between them.History or custom or social utility or some compelling sentiment of justice or sometimes perhaps a semi-intuitive apprehension of the pervading spirit of our law must come to the rescue of the anxious judge, and tell him where to go.
