Brentnall v. Marshall
Decision Date | 17 December 1900 |
Docket Number | 429. [*] |
Citation | 63 P. 93,10 Kan.App. 488 |
Parties | SAMUEL BRENTNALL v. SAMUEL MARSHALL |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Decided December, 1900.
Error from Osage district court; WM. THOMSON, judge.
Judgment of district court affirmed.
1. PRACTICE, District Court -- Variance -- Amendment. "Where there is a variance between the allegations of a bill of particulars and the facts proved and specifically found by the jury on the trial, yet if it be a case where an amendment to a bill of particulars ought to be allowed, to conform it to the facts proved and found, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff will not be reversed on account of the variance, if no substantial rights of the defendant have been prejudiced." (Jung v. Liebert, 44 Kan. 304, 24 P. 474.)
2. REAL ESTATE -- Contract of Sale -- Default. Where, by the terms of a contract for the sale and conveyance of land, the purchase-price is made payable in instalments, and the conveyance is to be made upon the payment of the last instalment, and where default is made by the purchaser in the payment of instalments and no action is taken by the vendor either to enforce or rescind the contract, until after the maturity of the last instalment, the obligations of the parties to the contract are mutual and dependent, and the vendor cannot put the purchaser in default save by an offer to convey the land.
A. A. Hurd, W. Littlefield, and O. J. Wood, for plaintiff in error.
C. S. Martin, and J. H. Stavely, for defendant in error.
On May 22, 1886, the Osage Carbon Company, a corporation doing business under the laws of Kansas, entered into a written contract by which it agreed to sell and convey to Samuel Marshall, the defendant in error herein, certain real estate in Osage county. Marshall made a cash payment upon the land of $ 545, and agreed to pay the balance of the purchase-price, $ 2160, with accruing interest, in five instalments, the last instalment being due May 22, 1891. The contract contained, among others, the following provisions:
Marshall entered into possession of and occupied the land and made some substantial improvements upon it. In March, 1894, he leased the premises for a term of one year to Samuel Brentnall, plaintiff in error, who took possession of and occupied the same.
Marshall failed to pay all the instalments as provided by the terms of the contract, and in December, 1894, the Osage Carbon Company canceled the contract. Marshall did not consent to such cancelation otherwise than by the terms of the contract itself.
On January 18, 1895, the Osage Carbon Company executed a written lease of the premises to plaintiff in error Brentnall, who continued in possession of the land until March 1, 1896, claiming, however, to hold possession of the premises from January 18, 1895, to March 1, 1896, under and by virtue of the lease executed to him by the Osage Carbon Company.
Marshall brought suit against Brentnall before a justice of the peace of Osage county to recover $ 200 as rent for the premises for one year, from March 1, 1895, to March 1, 1896, and succeeded in obtaining a judgment in his favor. The case was then taken on appeal to the district court of Osage county, where a judgment was again rendered in Marshall's favor. Brentnall brings the case here for review.
Plaintiff in error contends that as this action was founded upon a written lease of the land, and the proof showed that the tenant was never put in possession of the land and never occupied it, there was, therefore, no right of recovery. Both the lease upon which the action is founded and plaintiff's petition described the land as being situated in township 17, Osage county, Kansas, while the proof showed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rischar v. Shields
...not give them the right to continue in possession and also the right to recover back the payments made on the land. In Brentnall v. Marshall, 10 Kan. App. 488, 63 P. 93, it was held that where payments are to be made installments and deed given on the payment of the last installment, the ve......
-
Wolter v. Dixon
... ... deed that are mutually concurrent and dependent obligations, ... and no tender of deed is necessary. (Rischar v. Shields, ... supra; Brentnall v. Marshall, 10 Kan. App. 488, 63 ... P. 93; Voight v. Fidelity Inv. Co., 49 Wash. 612, 96 ... P. 162.) His obligations to make the payments and ... ...
-
Virginia Mining Co. v. Haeder
...out its money on the last payment without receiving a deed from the respondents, as provided for in their contract. (Brentnall v. Marshall, 10 Kan. App. 488, 63 P. 93; Gray v. Meek, 199 Ill. 136, 64 N.E. James A. Wayne and H. E. Worstell, for Respondents. The contract is essentially the sam......