Baldwin v. Schiappacasse

• Decision Date: 28 April 1896
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BALDWIN v. SCHIAPPACASSE.

66 N.W. 1091

109 Mich. 170

BALDWIN v. SCHIAPPACASSE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 28, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county, in chancery; Robert E Frazer, Judge.

Bill by Stephen Baldwin against Louis Schiappacasse on an agreement for sale of lands. From a decree in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Griffin & Warner (F. A. Baker, of counsel), for appellant.

Bowen Douglas & Whiting (William H. Wells, of counsel), for appellee.

GRANT J.

The bill of complaint in this case is based upon the following instrument:

"Detroit, Michigan, February 25th, 1893. Received of Louis Schiappacasse $1,000, part of the purchase of the following described property, to wit: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13, part of Youngblood's subdivision of part of the southeast quarter of section eleven of town 1 south, of range eleven east, excepting lots 1 and 328 to 350, inclusive, of plats known as 'Palmer Park Subdivision'; said exception fronting 18.85 feet on Woodward avenue, extending along the Six Mile road to Kelly road, and fronting of the Kelly road 120 feet, which I have sold him for Stephen Baldwin, Esq., subject to said plat, on the following terms: Price $100,000; $24,000 more cash to be paid on examination of abstract on, say, March 10, 1893; balance to be paid as follows: $500 in one year, and $70,000 in five years, from date of deed, to be secured by purchase-money mortgage, and to bear interest at six per cent. per annum, payable half-yearly. J. W. Simcock.

"I agree to buy the foregoing property, on the terms named. L. Schiappacasse."

The bill alleges that, by this document, a sale was made, and that complainant has a vendor's lien for the purchase price; prays for a sale of the property, and a personal decree against the defendant for the residue. The answer denies that any valid contract was made with Mr. Simcock as the agent of complainant, or that complainant ratified the act of Simcock in making such alleged contract. The sole authority which Mr. Simcock had, if he had any, rested in parol. The complainant, some days prior to February 25th, met Mr. Cameron Curry, a real-estate broker, in the street, and told Mr. Curry that his land was for sale, and wanted to know if he could find a purchaser. Mr. Simcock was interested with Mr. Curry at that time in other property matters, and he spoke to Mr. Simcock about selling the complainant's land. The price fixed was $100,000. The contract was not signed by the complainant, nor by an agent authorized by writing. The authority, whatever it was, rested entirely in parol. It needs no citation of authorities to show that this contract was void under the statute of frauds, and did not bind either complainant or defendant, until the complainant had ratified the act in some manner which would take it out of the statute. In fact, Simcock had not even verbal authority to fix the terms provided in this contract. The check was handed to complainant on the evening of February 25th, but this was not sufficient compliance with the statute. He, in fact, did not then accept the contract or ratify the act of his alleged agent. On the contrary, he insisted upon other terms; and, on the 27th day of February, Mr. Simcock went to the...