Pierson v. Ballard
| Decision Date | 07 July 1884 |
| Citation | 20 N.W. 193,32 Minn. 263 |
| Parties | Robert Pierson v. A. M. Ballard |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Koon, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
Order reversed.
Cyrus J. Thompson, for appellant.
F Hooker, for respondent.
The contract is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Evidence may be resorted to in order to identify the property. The location and identification of the land may be established by parol. Sanborn v. Nockin, 20 Minn 163, (178;) Tice v. Freeman, 30 Minn. 389; Ames v Lowry, Id. 283; Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass 545; Mead v. Parker, 115 Mass. 413; Pomeroy on Contracts, § 90.
We are to consider as to the sufficiency of a complaint upon which the plaintiff, as the vendor of real property, seeks to enforce against the vendee the specific performance of a contract of sale.
The only facts appearing from the complaint which need be noticed, are these, viz.: That the plaintiff was and is the owner of real property in Hennepin county, in this state, briefly described as the W. 1/2 of the S. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4 of section 11, township 28, range 24; that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement in these terms:
The complaint further alleges "that by the description of lands mentioned in the written contract aforesaid it was intended by the parties thereto to embrace and include the lands first herein described."
The complaint is insufficient, because it is not alleged, nor does it appear from the facts alleged, that any contract for the sale of land has been made which is valid under the statute of frauds. The writing does not describe or designate the land which is the subject of its provisions. We will assume (although we do not decide that the complaint shows the fact to be so) that the burying-ground is a place sufficiently designated by the name employed, and that the "five-acre tract along by the fence just back of" it, is well described and susceptible of certain identification. The question, then, is, which two and a half acres of the five-acre tract is referred to? The words "along by the fence," etc., grammatically and naturally refer to the five-acre tract, and not to the two and one-half acre tract of land. Hence, the two and a half acres is not designated as that part (of the five-acre tract) along by the fence. The only designation given to it is that it is the "first half" of a defined (as we assumed) larger tract. This description is upon its face ambiguous. It will allow the two and a half acres to be taken from either one of the several sides of the five-acre tract. It may equally well refer to the north, south, east, or west half of the larger body of land. If the term "first half" is to be deemed as meaning that part of the five acres which is first reached in approaching the land, it is still undisclosed...
To continue reading
Request your trial