Bauman v. Peters, 27957.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 27957.,27957. |
| Citation | 231 N.W. 613,181 Minn. 85 |
| Parties | BAUMAN v. PETERS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Sibley County; C. M. Tifft, Judge.
Action by G. G. Bauman against Henry H. Peters. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying his motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding verdict or a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed in so far as judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied, and otherwise reversed, and a new trial awarded.
Geo. A. & C. H. MacKenzie and H. A. Knobel, all of Gaylord, for appellant.
Philip L. Scherer, of Winthrop, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion in the alternative for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
The short facts are that the parties hereto entered into a written contract whereby plaintiff agreed to convey to defendant certain lots in Minneapolis and transfer promissory notes of the face value of $1,000, and in consideration therefor defendant agreed to convey an undivided half interest in 160 acres of land in Perkins county, S. D. The properties were to be free of incumbrances. Abstracts and deeds were to be exchanged not later than March 1, 1924, time being the essence of the contract, each party to pay all taxes on their property when deeds were exchanged. The contract contained these two provisions of importance to a decision of the appeal: Neither party had regard for time. Defendant did not execute his deed until April 10, 1924, and deposited it on that day with Geo. MacKenzie, the vice president of the First State Bank at Gaylord. Plaintiff did not deliver some of the promissory notes to defendant until in June, 1924, and still later the deed to the lots he gave defendant in exchange. The deeds were delivered with the name of the grantee in blank. The occasion for the lawsuit arose out of these circumstances: When defendant had deposited his deed to the Perkins' county land, Mr. MacKenzie sent it with Maitland, a former partner of defendant, who went on business to Estherville, Iowa, where plaintiff then lived, with instructions to deliver to plaintiff and to receive from plaintiff the balance of the promissory notes defendant was to have in the deal. There had been some prior discussion between plaintiff and Maitland wherein the latter learned that plaintiff preferred not to own an undivided interest in land. So Maitland had procured a deed from Barnes Brothers Corporation to 160 acres of land in Butte county, S. D., with grantee in blank, and when he reached plaintiff it was proposed that this deed should be accepted in lieu of the deed from defendant to the Perkins county land. Maitland testified that the proposal was accepted and the deed delivered. Plaintiff testified that he agreed to the proposition, provided the title proved good, and that he received the deed for the purpose only of investigating the title, and that he found the title not good. The fact remains that the deed was retained, and that plaintiff has obtained other or curative deeds to the land from the receiver of Barnes Brothers Corporation and perhaps others. There is some claim that there is a mortgage on the land, and that it was sold for the taxes of 1922, but the evidence does not show the state of the title by abstract or other satisfactory manner to either the Perkins county or the Butte county land. When either party offered to prove anything in respect to the value of the land, or the amount of the incumbrance, or of the unpaid taxes, the other party's objection was sustained on the theory that the only damages sought were the...
To continue reading
Request your trial