Adams v. Abbott, A-3703
Decision Date | 10 December 1952 |
Docket Number | No. A-3703,A-3703 |
Parties | ADAMS v. ABBOTT et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
McKool, McDaniel & Bader, Dallas, for petitioner.
Roland Boyd and Paul Worden, McKinney, for respondents.
This is an action brought by respondents, Clyde B. Abbott and Maurice Montgomery, against petitioner, Mrs. Rheby B. Adams in trespass to try title and for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale by petitioner to respondent Abbott of a farm in Collin County. Mrs. Adams entered her appearance by filing an answer consisting of a plea of not guilty and a general denial. The alleged contract was evidenced by an exchange of letters between Montgomery, Mrs. Adams, and Worley Smith, Secretary-Treasurer of McKinney National Farm Loan Association. The remedy of specific performance was denied by the trial court and judgment was rendered accordingly that respondents take nothing by their suit. That judgment was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals and judgment decreeing specific performance was rendered in favor of respondents. 248 S.W.2d 514.
In their original petition the respondents, as plaintiffs, declared upon three letters passing between Montgomery and Mrs. Adams. Those letters are copied in full in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. By trial amendment they alleged that other and different correspondence passed between the parties and between Mrs. Adams and Worley Smith and copied those various letters in their pleadings. When all of the letters are considered together they disclose these elements of a completed contract. The transaction had its inception in a letter written by Mrs. Adams, a resident of Russellville, Kentucky, but formerly a resident of Collin County, Texas, to respondent Maurice Montgomery, a farmer residing in Collin County and a friend of Mrs. Adams. In that letter she requested him to assist her 'in the sale of my little farm out there.' Her offer was to take $3,000.00 cash 'and it can be any one's property.' In his reply to that letter Montgomery submitted a counteroffer of $2,500.00 cash made by an unidentified bidder (respondent Abbott). The letter disclosed that Montgomery was not negotiating for himself but for an unnamed person. We quote from that letter:
That counteroffer was promptly accepted in a letter from Mrs. Adams addressed to Montgomery, in which she wrote:
That correspondence constituted a definite counteroffer of $2,500.00 in cash by an unidentified party and an unqualified acceptance of the offer by Mrs. Adams. By other correspondence copied or referred to in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals it is disclosed that the subject matter of the sale was 'my farm in Collin County, Texas,' and that it was near Farmersville. There is evidence in the record that Mrs. Adams owned no land in Texas other than the Collin County farm. In other letters written by Mrs. Adams reference was made to the land as being in three parcels. Quoting from one of her letters:
We judicially know that McKinney is the county seat of Collin County, and the statement that 'All are recorded in McKinney' is tantamount to a statement that they are recorded in the deed records of Collin County. We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Civil Appeals (248 S.W.2d 520), that 'these writings were amply sufficient in description of the particular land sought to be conveyed; definitely furnishing numerous keys by which it might be identified with certainty'. Pickett v. Bishop, 148 Tex. 207, 223 S.W.2d 222; Sanderson v. Sanderson, 130 Tex. 264, 109 S.W.2d 744; Wilson v. Fisher, 144 Tex. 53, 188 S.W.2d 150; City of Abilene v. Sayles, Tex.Com.App., 295 S.W. 578.
Petitioner bases her contention that the description is insufficient primarily upon the ground that only the three letters declared upon in respondents' original petition may be considered by the court. We cannot adopt that view. All the letters referred to in the trial amendment passed between the parties or between Mrs. Adams and Worley Smith, her representative, for the purpose of closing the transaction, and all dealt with the same subject, namely, the sale of the farm to an unidentified purchaser. A memorandum is required by the statute of frauds, not for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University
...1101 at 1105. Mutuality of remedy is the right of both parties to a contract to obtain specific performance. See Adams v. Abbott, 151 Tex. 601, 254 S.W.2d 78, 80 (1952); Langley v. Norris, 173 S.W.2d at 458; Sanderson v. Sanderson, 130 Tex. 264, 109 S.W.2d 744, 748 (1938). Unlike a contract......
-
In re Woodstone Ltd. Partnership
...list is not exhaustive. See Wilt v. Kellogg, 99 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Civ. App.1936), aff'd 132 Tex. 345, 122 S.W.2d 1051; Adams v. Abbott, 151 Tex. 601, 254 S.W.2d 78 (1952); 2 Corbin on Contracts § 225 (1950 & 1991 Supp.) Here, however, FGB does not contest the terms of the "understanding" betw......
-
Swinehart v Stubbeman & McRae
...judgment order on Swinehart's negligence claims a final judgment for purposes of appeal. 4. Swinehart also relies on Adams v. Abott, 151 Tex. 601, 254 S.W.2d 78 (1952), for the proposition that multiple writings can constitute a contract sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Adams, h......
-
Gen. M v. John Stergiou & Main Marine Repair & Indus. Cleaning Co.
...their contract, and seller was required to furnish “current survey” of land after contract was executed); see also Adams v. Abbott, 151 Tex. 601, 254 S.W.2d 78, 80 (1952) (description furnished by exchange of correspondence between the parties). The GMF Companies' summary judgment evidence ......