Baker v. Holt

• Decision Date: 21 November 1882
• Citation: 56 Wis. 100,14 N.W. 8
• Parties: BAKER v. HOLT.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

56 Wis. 100

14 N.W. 8

BAKER

v.HOLT.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed November 21, 1882.

Appeal from circuit court, Wood county.

L. P. Powers, for respondent, C. O. Baker.

Geo. L. Williams and P. L. Spooner, for appellant, Thomas R. Holt.

TAYLOR, J.

This action is brought to compel the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate which the plaintiff claimed he had purchased from the defendant. The plaintiff resided at Centralia, in this state, and the defendant at Hartford, Connecticut. The contract, if any, was made by correspondence through the mail. The following are copies of the letters and telegram which plaintiff claims made the contract of sale:

“HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, October 24, 1881.

C. O. Baker--DEAR SIR: Your letter came to hand a few days ago, but I have delayed answering it owing to my being sick. In regard to my land, I have had letters from one or two other parties within a month wanting to buy it. I told them I was not ready to sell yet, but if you want to buy now I will tell you just what I will do: I will sell the whole 120 acres for $800; one-fourth cash down, and the balance in three equal notes, payable in one, two, and three years, with interest at 6 per cent. The notes to be secured by mortgage back on the land. This is my offer, if you want it now; I would not agree to keep the offer good a great while. I remain very truly yours,

THOMAS R. HOLT, 29 Benton street, Hartford, Connecticut.”

“CENTRALIA, WIS., November 7, 1881.

Thomas R. Holt, Esq., Hartford, Connecticut--DEAR SIR: Yours of October 24th is at hand and contents noted. I will take your land at the figures named and upon the terms mentioned in your letter--$800 for the 120 acres; $200 on receipt of deed and $600 in three annual payments of $200 each, with interest at 6 per cent.; security back on the land. You may make out the deed, leaving the name of the grantee in blank, and forward the same to J. L. Mosher, Esq., county treasurer of Wood county, at Grand Rapids, Wisconsin, or to your agent, if you have one here, to be delivered to me on payment of the $200 and the delivery of the necessary security. You will confer a favor by notifying me whether you still hold your offer good, and to whom you will send the deed, at your earliest convenience. Yours, truly,

C. O. BAKER.”

“CENTRALIA, WIS., November 10, 1881.

Thomas R. Holt, 29 Benton Street: Have written you. Will take land at your figures. Answer.

C. O. BAKER.”

The evidence shows that it takes four days to transmit by mail a letter from Centralia to Hartford, and the same time from Hartford to Centralia. It also shows that on the tenth day of November, and before he received the letter of plaintiff, dated the seventh of the same month, and before the telegram was received, the defendant wrote again to the plaintiff, notifying him that he had concluded not to sell the land at the price named in his letter of the twenty-fourth of October, and that after the receipt by the plaintiff of defendant's letter of November 10th, and on the fourteenth of said month, plaintiff wrote and mailed to the defendant the following letter:

“CENTRALIA, WIS., November 14, 1881.

Thomas R. Holt, Hartford, Connecticut--DEAR SIR: Yours of November 10th is at hand and contents noted. Will you make me your lowest cash offer on your land, to hold good at least 20 days, that I may have time in which to signify my acceptance of the offer, if considered reasonable. $800 is about all the land is worth, and I would not give much more for it. Let me hear from you by return mail, and oblige yours, truly,

C. O. BAKER.”

The answer of the defendant admitted all the facts above stated, and for the purposes of this case it is also presumed that the answer admits that the plaintiff wrote the defendant a letter of inquiry, as stated in his complaint, in which letter the lands of the defendant were properly described as alleged in said complaint. The plaintiff demurred to the answer on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. The circuit court sustained the demurrer, and from the order sustaining the same the defendant appeals to this court. This ruling can only be sustained upon the ground that the plaintiff's letter of November 7th was an unqualified acceptance of the offer to sell made by the defendant in his letter of October 24th, or that the telegram of November 10th was such an...