Bright v. James

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JOHNSON, J.
• Citation: Bright v. James, 35 R.I. 128, 85 A. 545 (R.I. 1913)
• Decision Date: 13 January 1913
• Parties: BRIGHT v. JAMES et al.

85 A. 545

35 R.I. 128

BRIGHT

v. JAMES et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 13, 1913.

Appeal from Superior Court, Washington County; Darius Baker, Judge.

Suit by Robert L. Bright against George S. James and others for specific performance. From decree for complainant, respondents appeal. Appeal dismissed, decree affirmed, and cause remanded.

Harry B. Agard, of Westerly, and Tillinghast & Collins, of Providence (James C. Collins, of Providence, of counsel), for appellants.

Gardner, Pirce & Thornley, of Providence (William W. Moss, of Providence, of counsel), for appellee.

JOHNSON, J. This is a suit in equity brought in the superior court for the county of Washington for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real estate in said county described in the bill. It was brought by the vendee, Robert L. Bright, against the vendors, George S. James and Abby F. James, his wife, and against Charles Capwell and John H. Capwell, later purchasers from them of certain land and timber included in the contract sued on.

It is admitted that the contract was duly executed on April 25, 1907, and was as follows, omitting the descriptions of the properties included: "Received of R. L. Bright five hundred ($500.00) dollars, which is to be applied to the payment of the purchase price of eleven thousand two hundred ($11,200.00) dollars for which sum we have agreed to sell and convey to said Bright or his assigns, with a good and perfect title, the following described tracts and parcels of land. * * * We agree also to accept from said Bright, or his successors, or assigns, a mortgage on said different tracts of land for one-half of the $11,200.00, if he or they desire it, for three years, bearing interest at five per cent., payable annually, with right to discharge said mortgage at any time with accrued interest thereon. The balance of the purchase price is to be paid on the closing of the title and the passing the deed to said different lots or parcels of real estate and other property above mentioned. Richmond, Rhode Island, April 25, 1907. George S. James. [Seal.] Abby F. James. [Seal.] Witness as to both signatures: Amos E. Whitford." It is admitted that at this time the vendors did not have full title to all the properties, but undivided interests in some of them were held by near relatives of Mr. James. This was known to the parties when the contract was executed. Mr. James assured the complainant that he could sell these interests because he had contracted to buy them. One of the properties was subject to a small mortgage, which was not paid until that property was sold to the Capwells. There were also other defects in the titles of some of the properties, which neither of the parties learned of until afterwards. Mr. James testified that the complainant told him then that his lawyer would want a week to look up the properties. He also testified that he told the complainant that he, James, would have Judge Lewis draw the deeds when the complainant was ready.

The complainant and Mr. Whitford, who was with him when the contract was signed, both testified that it was then understood that Mr. James would need some time to get the deeds for these other interests, and that, when he was ready to deliver a deed with good title, he would notify the complainant, and give him a reasonable time to pay the balance of the money, and take the deed. The Jameses denied this, and testified that on the contrary they told him that they were ready then and that he said he would let them know when he was ready, which would be in 30 or 60 days. About two months after the making of the contract, Mr. James met Mr. Whitford driving near Usquepaug. He testified that Mr. Whitford was alone, and that they did not talk about the contract. Mr. Whitford and the complainant, however, both testified that they were together, and that they met Mr. James, and talked with him about the contract, and that he said that he had done nothing about getting deeds of the outstanding interests, and was in no hurry for his money, but would let the complainant or Judge Lewis know when he was ready. Near the end of June, 1907, Mr. James, by his wife, wrote a letter to the complainant. Mrs James said that in this letter she tried to convey the idea that she and her husband were ready to perform, and wanted him to perform. The complainant's recollection was that it was only a letter of inquiry as to when the sale could be completed. He answered by a letter dated June 26, 1907, which was introduced in evidence, stating that, as soon as Judge Lewis could investigate and report upon the respondents' title and furnish proper descriptions, they would be settled with upon proper execution of a deed, provided their title was good and clear. Judge Lewis, in May or June, 1907, had been employed by the complainant to examine the titles to the properties, and began work the latter part of June or early in July. In order to get information to assist him in that work, he wrote a letter to Mr. James, dated July 16, 1907, and introduced in evidence, in which he asked for further information about several of the properties, explaining what he wanted it for, and said that, if anybody else except Mr. James owned any part of them, he wanted the names and places of residence of every man and woman that was to sign any of the deeds. Judge Lewis testified that he was never employed to draw any deeds, and that his employment was simply to look up and report on the titles to these properties and many others, which he did as rapidly as he could conveniently, consistently with his other duties. In consequence of this letter, Mr. James called upon Judge Lewis, and gave him some information about the properties. He talked about one of them, the Daniel Webster place, of which he had lost the deed, and did not get another and put it on record until about a year after the contract was made. He testified that he told Judge Lewis that the heirs were ready to sign the deeds, and that he would like to have the matter closed up, but Judge Lewis had no recollection of any such statements.

Nothing else occurred in connection with the matter until about October 10th of the same year, when Mr. James, having got from Judge Lewis the complainant's address in New York, had his wife write the complainant a letter, which was duly delivered to him at his New York office. It was introduced in evidence, and was as follows: "Octo. 10/07. Mr. Bright My Dear Sir: Not having heard from you in so long, I conclude you have given up the lands. You surely have had time to find your titles. The time given to get off the lumber on the South Kingston lot is nearly out. I shall have to begin cutting the lumber at once. The longest time you ever mentioned was 6 mos., and it has been 6 mos. with great damage to me. Yours very respectfully, G. S. James." West Kingston, R. I. To this letter the complainant replied by a letter introduced in evidence, which was dated October 12th, addressed to Mr. James at West Kingston, R. I., and duly received by him. In it he acknowledged receipt of the above letter in reference to the "purchase" of the respondents' properties, and continued: "I have been intending to go to Rhode Island, almost every day for more than two weeks, to see you and other parties from whom I made land purchases, and to assure you and them, not only that those purchases would be carried out to the letter and in perfect good faith, but to arrange with you and them for that purpose." He then stated that he intended to live up to his agreements like a man, but that there had been several causes of delay in getting the sales closed up. One of these he gave as the inability of Judge Lewis to complete more rapidly his investigation of the titles. The other he gave as the opposition of certain parties. He closed as follows: "I beg to assure you that the purchase from you will be carried out in good faith, and that before many days, as soon as I can hear from Judge Lewis as to your titles and boundaries. I expect to be in Rhode Island some time next week, and, if possible, I will call to see you, or have you meet me somewhere." He did go to Rhode Island a short time afterwards, but said that he was not able to stay long enough to see Mr. James.

After receipt of this letter Mr. James did nothing about repudiating the contract, and testified that he continued to intend to perform on his part for about a year until the time of the sale of the properties to the Capwells. Mr. Whitford testified that six months or more after the date of the contract he saw Mr. James hauling some lumber, and that the latter told him he was cutting some from the land sold to the complainant, but would pay him for it. He did nothing else inconsistent with the contract until the next spring, when he moved the sawmill, and began to cut off some of the timber. He did not at any time tender any deed to the complainant, or make any offer of performance, and did not make any attempt to communicate with him after the letter of October 10, 1907. Judge Lewis' report came in the form of a letter to the complainant dated November 5, 1907, with regard to various titles he was looking up, including those of the properties bought from Mr. James. He said that he had practically completed the examination, but needed explanations as to two or three matters in connection with these latter properties; that there were outstanding interests in some of them; that there was no deed on record of the Daniel Webster lot from Daniel Webster to Mr. James; that the title to nearly all the properties appeared to be good, but that he did not have all his notes typewritten yet. On receipt of this letter, as the complainant testified, he wrote to Mr. James a letter dated November 7, 1907, a copy of which was filed as "Complainant's Exhibit 2." This was addressed to George S. James at West Kingston, R. I. The postage was prepaid upon it, and it was mailed...