buyer.[1]That is probably the prevailing view, though its wisdom has been sharply criticized.[2] 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.[3]Others say that his right is purely equitable.[4]
- ↑ Paine v. Meller, 6 Ves. 349, 352;Sewell v. Underbill, 197 N. Y. 168; 2 Williston on Contracts, sec. 931.
- ↑ 2 Williston on Contracts, sec. 940,
- ↑ Cook, 29 Harvard L. R. 816, 836.
- ↑ 28 Williston, 30 Harvard L. R. 97; 31 ibid. 822.
