Bayne v. Wiggins
Decision Date | 16 March 1891 |
Citation | 35 L.Ed. 144,139 U.S. 210,11 S.Ct. 521 |
Parties | BAYNE et al. v. WIGGINS et ux |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
R. Brown and M. F. Elliott, for plaintiffs in error.
S. A. Davenport, for defendants in error.
This was an action of assumpsit by D. B. Wiggins and Jane M. Wiggins, his wife, citizens of New York, against S. G. Bayne, J. M. Fuller, and T. J. Melvin, citizens of Pennsylvania. The declaration alleged that on November 21, 1883, Mrs. Wiggins sold, and the defendants agreed to buy, a tract of land owned by her, and situated in Lafayette township and McKean county in the state of Pennsylvania, for the price of $10,000, payable one-half on delivery of the deed, one-fourth in three months, and the other fourth in six months, with interest; and that on November 28, 1883, she delivered to them a good and sufficient deed of the land, and possession of the same. The evidence introduced by the plaintiffs at the trial was to the following effect: Wiggins and wife resided near Buffalo, New York, and she was seised of the land in question under a recorded deed. On November 21, 1883, at Bradford, in Pennsylvania, and in the office of the First National Bank of Bradford, of which Bayne was president and Fuller vice-president, Wigginsmad e an oral agreement with Bayne and Fuller to sell the land for the price of $10,000, half in cash, (of which the sum of $250 was at once paid to him,) and the other half in notes, payable in three and six months, with interest; and the following memorandum of their agreement was drawn up by Bayne, signed by his direction by the cashier of the bank and delivered to Wiggins: Melvin was not present at that time, but afterwards admitted, in conversation with Wiggins and another person, that Bayne, Fuller, and himself were the purchasers; and Bell acted as their agent, and one Hayes, at Buffalo, as the plaintiff's agent throughout the subsequent transactions. On November 23d Wiggins and wife executed at Buffalo a deed to Bayne, Fuller, and Melvin, dated November 22d, of the land, describing it fully by metes and bounds, and expressed to be in consideration of the payment of $10,000, and acknowledged it before a notary public; but that deed was insufficient, under the law of Pennsylvania, to pass the title, because the notary's certificate did not state that he had made known its contents to the wife. Pa. St. Feb. 24, 1770, §§ 2, 3; 1 Dall. Laws, 536, 537; 1 Purd. Dig. (11th Ed.) 568, 569; Watson v. Mercer, 6 Serg. & R. 49; Hornbeck v. Association, 88 Pa. St. 64; Transit Co. v. Sheedy, 103 Pa. St. 492. On the same day Hayes sent that deed to Bell in a letter, saying: 'I inclose for collection and remittance, deed of J. M. and D. B. Wiggins, for which please remit us your draft on New York, $4,750, and two notes given by Bayne, Fuller, and Melvin, $2,500 each, at 3 and 6 months, with interest, to order D. B. Wiggins.' On Saturday, November 24th, Bell replied to Hayes: On Tuesday, November 27th, Bell wrote to Hayes, inclosing an unsigned deed, sustantially similar to the first one, except that the certificate of acknowledgment was according to the law of Pennsylvania; and saying in his letter: On November 28th Wiggins and wife signed this deed, and he sent it through Hayes to Bell; and it came back on November 29th, together with the first deed, and a letter from Bell to Hayes, which was given in evidence, dated November 29th, in which Bell said: There was also given in evidence a letter dated November 27th, and postmerked 'Bradford, November 29th,' to Wiggins, from the defendants' attorney, saying: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seifert v. Lanz
... ... 913; Lee ... v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800, 4 S.W. 835; ... Roehl v. Haumesser, 114 Ind. 311, 15 N.E. 345; ... Bayne v. Wiggins, 139 U.S. 210, 35 L.Ed. 144, 11 ... S.Ct. 521; Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala. 286, 4 So ... 748; Epperly v. Ferguson, 118 Iowa 47, 91 ... ...
-
Leaf v. Codd
... ... 447; Lewis v. Elliott Bay Logging Co., 112 ... Wash. 83, 191 P. 803; Crystal Palace v. Butterfield, ... 15 Colo. App. 246, 61 P. 497; Bayne v. Wiggins, 139 ... U.S. 210, 11 S.Ct. 521, 35 L.Ed. 144; Bibb v. Allen, ... 149 U.S. 481, 13 S.Ct. 950, 37 L.Ed. 819; Kleinhans v. Jones, ... ...
-
PITEK v. McGUIRE
...supplementing the memorandum written on the check. Ryan v. United States, 136 U.S. 68, 10 S.Ct. 913, 34 L.Ed. 447; Bayne v. Wiggins, 139 U.S. 210, 11 S.Ct. 521, 35 L.Ed. 144. But there is nothing in the letter to indicate the contents of the deed, and particularly whether its terms included......
-
Miller v. Dargan
...Id. 152; 38 Id. 174. See also 93 Id. 195. 6. All the papers connected with the transaction must be construed together. 121 Am. St. 357-9; 139 U.S. 210; 22 Oh. St. 62; So. 123; 29 A. & E. Enc. 850-1. 7. The case was taken out of the statute of frauds. 30 Ark. 250; 69 Id. 513; 52 Id. 207; 48 ......