Boburg v. Prahl

• Citation: 3 Wyo. 325,23 P. 70
• Parties: BOBURG v. PRAHL et al
• Decision Date: 28 January 1890
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

23 P. 70

3 Wyo. 325

BOBURG v. PRAHL et al

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 28, 1890

Error to district court, Albany county.

Action by Anna M. S. Boburg, as administratrix de bonis non of the estate of John Boburg, deceased, against Fred Prahl and another, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. On a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Rev St. Wyo. § 3008, provides that "the heirs at law or devisees of a person who purchased an interest in land by written contract, and died before conveyance thereof to him may compel such conveyance as the deceased might have done."

Judgment affirmed.

W. H Fishback, for plaintiff in error.

M. C. Jahren, for defendants in error.

VAN DEVANTER, C. J. CORN and SAUFLEY, JJ., concurred.

OPINION

VAN DEVANTER, C. J.

This was a suit in the district court of the county of Albany to compel the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. John Boburg, in his life-time, entered into a written contract with Fred Prahl whereby the latter agreed to convey to Boburg certain lots in the city of Laramie upon receipt of a stated consideration, to be thereafter paid in monthly installments. Under the agreement, Boburg took possession of the lots, and made improvements thereon; but before completing the payment of the purchase price he died. The petition, after stating these facts, alleges that Anna M S. Boburg is the widow of the decedent, and is the duly-constituted administratrix de bonis non of his estate. It also states that she has completed the payments under the contract, has demanded a conveyance from the defendant Prahl, and that he refuses to execute a deed for the premises in question. The defendants answered, and upon the trial the court found that the purchase money had not been fully paid, and gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial on the following grounds: "(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the defendant Fred Prahl, by which the plaintiff was prevented from having a fair trial. (2) That the decision and judgment of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law. (3) Because the finding and judgment of the court is against the law and the evidence. (4) Error of law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the plaintiff. (5) Because the finding, decision, and judgment of the court should have been for the plaintiff in said cause, and against the defendants. (6) Because the findings,...