Beaumont v. Prieto
| Decision Date | 05 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 303,303 |
| Parties | BEAUMONT v. PRIETO et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Joseph D. Sullivan and Timothy Ansberry, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Alexander Britton and H. W. Van Dyke, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees and defendants in error.
This is a suit for the specific performance of an alleged contract to sell land. The court of first instance made a decree for the plaintiff, but the decree was reversed by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and the defendants were absolved from the complaint. There is a motion to dismiss, on the ground that the writ of error and citation were not made returnable in time. But without going into particulars, as the appellant had color of authority from the court and a judge of that court, it appears to us that justice will be better served by dealing with the merits of the case. See Southern Pine Co. v. Ward, 208 U. S. 126, 137, 28 Sup. Ct. 239, 52 L. Ed. 420.
On the merits the only question is whether the alleged contract was made. The first material step was the following offer, dated December 4, 1911:
There is no dispute that the assessed government valuation was 307,000 pesos, that Legarda owned the land and that Valdes had power to make the offer. On January 17, 1912, Borck wrote to Valdes:
'In reference to our negotiations regarding' the property in question, 'I offer to purchase said property for the sum of three hundred and seven thousand (307,000.00) pesos, Ph. C., cash, net to you, payable the first day of May 1912, or before and with delivery of a torrens title free of all encumbrances as taxes and other debts.'
There was dispute about the admissibility of this letter and its being signed, but we see no occasion to disturb the opinion of the Supreme Court that it was a part of the transaction and was admissible. No answer was received, and on January 19 Borck wrote again, saying that he was ready to purchase the property at the price and that full payment would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nomanbhoy Family Ltd. v. Mcdonald's Corp.
...of the offer—is not an acceptance, but a counteroffer. It matters not how minor the deviation. See Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U.S. 554, 39 S.Ct. 383, 63 L.Ed. 770 (1919)(Holmes, J.); Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 96 F.3d 275, 278 (7th Cir.1996); Dawson v. General Motor......
-
Ismert and Associates, Inc. v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...and its subsequent execution of the July 24 release constituted only a counter-offer. See, e.g., Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U.S. 554, 556, 39 S.Ct. 383, 384, 63 L.Ed. 770 (1919) (Holmes, J.); Champlin v. Jackson, 317 Mass. 461, 462, 58 N.E.2d 757, 758 (1945); Lawrence v. Rosenberg, 238 Mass. 1......
-
Shea v. Second Nat. Bank, 8234.
...in contrast to marketable title, which is implied by law); Coffin v. Portland, C. C.D.Ind., 43 F. 411. 5 Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U.S. 554, 555, 39 S.Ct. 383, 63 L.Ed. 770; Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. v. Columbus Rolling Mill Co., 119 U.S. 149, 152, 7 S.Ct. 168, 30 L.Ed. 376; Potts v. Whiteh......
-
Robertson v. Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Co.
...see Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 217 U.S. 547, 551, 30 S.Ct. 581, 54 L.Ed. 877, 19 Ann.Cas. 854; Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U.S. 554, 39 S.Ct. 383, 63 L.Ed. 770; E. R. Squibbs & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 293 U.S. 190, 55 S.Ct. 135, 79 L.Ed. 279; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Co......