Balkema v. Searle
Decision Date | 12 April 1902 |
Citation | 116 Iowa 374,89 N.W. 1087 |
Parties | BALKEMA v. SEARLE. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Sioux county; Wm. Hutchinson, Judge.
Action in equity to enforce specific performance of an alleged contract to convey real estate. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Hatley & Irwin, for appellant.
Hutchinson & Plank, for appellee.
Defendant, who resided in the state of Wisconsin, owned a quarter section of land in Sioux county. In the month of February, 1899, one Snyders, a real estate agent at Orange City, wrote plaintiff asking if his land was for sale, and, if it was, at what price. This letter was answered by defendant, who stated, in substance, that the land was for sale, price $5,000 net, $2,000 cash, balance on time at 6 per cent.; the purchaser to take subject to lease for two years. The next letter of any consequence was written by Snyders, and is as follows: To this defendant responded: Snyders then wrote again: Defendant's answer to the last letter was as follows: On October 24th following, Snyders, in defendant's name, entered into a contract of sale of the land to plaintiff on the following terms, among others: Price, $5,200, $100 of which was paid down, $2,500 to be paid on execution of deed, and the remainder on or before two years, at 6 per cent. interest, to be secured by mortgage. Sale made subject to lease. The said lease and notes to be assigned to first party. Second party to furnish an abstract of title at his own expense. The defendant repudiated this contract, denying Snyders' authority to make it, and this action on his part gives rise to the present suit.
There is no question but that Snyders was defendant's agent to some extent and for some purpose relating to the sale of this land, and we fail...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Landskroener v. Henning
...Wash. 122, 62 Pac. 499;Campbell v. Galloway, 148 Ind. 440, 47 N. E. 818;Shillinglaw v. Sims, 86 S. C. 76, 67 S. E. 906;Balkema v. Searle, 116 Iowa, 374, 89 N. W. 1087; Chick v. Grassick, 2 W. L. R. 284; Dickinson v. Updike (N. J. Err. & App.) 49 Atl. 712;Whitehouse v. Gerdis, 95 Neb. 228, 1......
-
Larson v. O'Hara
...73 Iowa, 652, 35 N. W. 690;Furst v. Tweed, 93 Iowa, 300, 61 N. W. 857;Holmes v. Redhead, 104 Iowa, 399, 73 N. W. 878;Balkema v. Searle, 116 Iowa, 374, 89 N. W. 1087;Campbell v. Galloway, 148 Ind. 440, 47 N. E. 818;Dickinson v. Updike (N. J. Err. & App.) 49 Atl. 712;Lindley v. Keim, 54 N. J.......
-
Larson v. O'Hara
...73 Iowa 652, 35 N.W. 690; Furst v. Tweed, 93 Iowa 300, 61 N.W. 857; Holmes v. Redhead, 104 Iowa 399, 73 N.W. 878; Balkema v. Searle, 116 Iowa 374, 89 N.W. 1087; Campbell v. Galloway, 148 Ind. 440, 47 N.E. Dickinson v. Updike (N.J. Eq.) 49 A. 712; Lindley v. Keim, 54 N.J.Eq. 418, 34 A. 1073.......
-
Larson v. O'Hara
...73 Iowa, 652, 35 N. W. 690; Furst v. Tweed, 93 Iowa, 300, 61 N. W. 857; Holmes v. Redhead, 104 Iowa, 399, 73 N. W. 878; Balkema v. Searle, 116 Iowa, 374, 89 N. W. 1087; Campbell v. Galloway, 148 Ind. 440, 47 N. E. 818; Dickinson v. Updike (N. J. Eq.) 49 Atl. 712; Lindley v. Keim, 54 N. J. E......