Baldwin v. Squier
| Decision Date | 03 January 1884 |
| Citation | 1 P. 591,31 Kan. 283 |
| Parties | AMBROSE S. BALDWIN, et al., v. CATHERINE M. SQUIER |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Mitchell District Court.
ACTION brought by Catherine M. Squier against Ambrose S. Baldwin and another, for specific performance of a parol contract to convey certain land. Trial at the March Term, 1882, and judgment for plaintiff. The defendants bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Horace Cooper, for plaintiffs in error.
Holt & Fowler, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action for specific performance. The facts as found by the jury, are briefly these: In June, 1877, one Jeremiah Baldwin owned the land. He then made a parol contract with plaintiff, that if she would come and live with and take care of him till his death, he would give her his property after he was done with it. She did live with and take care of him till his death, in 1878. She had no other possession than as living with him, the jury saying that the only way in which he delivered any possession was by telling her that she would find the receiver's receipt in the clock, and that the patent was in Concordia. After his death she continued in exclusive possession and made some slight improvements, the value of which was more than made up to her in the value of the use and occupation. There was no agreement for the making of a will by him, and no other contract than as specified. Defendants claim by inheritance from Baldwin.
Was plaintiff entitled to a decree of specific performance? The testimony is not preserved; so we only know the facts as found by the jury as above stated. The contract, being one in parol, was obviously under the statute of frauds nonenforceable. Three matters are presented, to take the case out of the statute: First, the improvements. To this we reply, that as these were made after Baldwin's death and without authority from his heirs, they can have no effect. If the title did not pass at Baldwin's death, it has not been transferred by any subsequent matters. Second, delivery of possession. But to take a parol contract for the sale of land out of the statute of frauds by reason of a delivery of possession, such possession must be notorious, exclusive, and obviously in pursuance of the contract. (Browne on Statute of Frauds, §§ 473, 474, 476.) Coming to live with the owner on his land answers neither demand. Third, payment of purchase-price by performance of all the conditions of the contract. In reference to this the general rule is, that payment of the purchase-price does not take such a contract out of the reach of the statute of frauds. ( Edwards v. Fry, 9 Kan. 417; Fry on Specific Performance, § 403; Browne on Statute of Frauds, § 463.) This is upon the ground that the money can be recovered back by action, and so no fraud will be accomplished if the parol contract is not enforced.
A case in New York, Rhodes v. Rhodes, 3 Sandf. Ch. 279 makes an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eakin v. Wycoff
... ... held that payment alone is not sufficient, for the amount ... paid may be readily ascertained and can be recovered in ... damages ( Baldwin v. Squier, 31 Kan. 283, 284, 1 P ... 591; Goddard v. Donaha, 42 Kan. 754, 22 P. 708); ... that possession alone is not sufficient ( Baldridge ... ...
-
In re Henry's Estate
...contract was made until she married, was easily ascertainable, and might have been recovered on a quantum meruit, ***." The syllabus of the Baldwin case cited in the above case "Where A., the owner and in possession of a tract of land, made a parol contract with B. that if she would come an......
-
Jones v. Davis
... ... performance prior to the farm sale held in 1947. Appellant ... says that our decisions from Baldwin v. Squier, 31 ... Kan. 283, 1 P. 591, down to In re Estate of Henry, ... 157 Kan. 471, 142 P.2d 717, have recognized the rule that if ... ...
-
Dent v. Morton
... ... enforcement of the contract, and they direct our attention to ... the early case of Baldwin v. Squier, 31 Kan. 283, 1 ... P. 591, wherein the period in which services were performed ... did not exceed eighteen months and where it was held: ... ...