Even if the deed had been in proper form, and the property conveyed by it free and clear of incumbrance, the tender could not absolve the defendant from his obligation to perform the decree, upon application to the Court by the plaintiff. The judgment and decree of the Fourth District Court stood recorded against the defendant--not performed, appealed from, or reversed, and in full force and effect. The plaintiffdesired the defendant to comply with it, and he refused, putting his refusal on the ground that he had, since the decree was entered, tendered performance of it, and therefore the Court had now no power to compel the performance on his part of the decree.
The cases cited are well selected as illustrations of the office of the writ of audita querela, but they are not cases in point. In each and all of them the judgment of the Court had been performed by the party availing himself of the writ; he had actually paid the money and obeyed the orders required of him, or issued to him by the Court, which, after such performance, interposed the shelter of the writ against the fraud or injustice of his adversary. But in none of these cases is tender held to be performance or its equivalent.
JUDGES: Rhodes, J.
OPINION
RHODES, Judge
The defendant cannot complain of the delay in the entry of the judgment, because he could have had it entered upon his own motion at any time after the filing of the findings. The judgment does not specify any time within which the money was to be paid by the plaintiff, or the conveyance executed by the defendant; and we cannot say that the delay in tendering the money, from the entry of the judgment in September to the ensuing month of March, indicated an intention on his part to abandon the fruits of the judgment. A tender, though sufficient to enable a party to maintain an action upon a dependent covenant, condition or agreement, is not equivalent, in every respect, to performance. It does not satisfy or extinguish the obligation. And even when suit is brought upon the dependent covenant, the plaintiff must show continuous readiness to perform after the tender. No case, that we are aware of, holds that an offer to comply with the commands of a judgment amounts to a satisfaction. Nor are we aware of any authority for the position assumed by the counsel for appellant, that in an action for specific performance, the plaintiff, after a decree in his favor, will lose the fruits of the litigation by his tardiness in enforcing his rights, unless the delay should be so great as to render the Statute of Limitations available to his adversary. The answer to all complaints from the appellant, on the score of delay, is that he had it in his power at any time to hasten the action of the respondent by tendering a full performance on his own part, and if the respondent refused to comply with the decree, the Court, on motion, would have ordered him to perform within a specified time, on pain of having the decree set aside.
Order affirmed.