Burkhalter v. Jones
Decision Date | 02 April 1884 |
Citation | 32 Kan. 5,3 P. 559 |
Parties | CHARLES BURKHALTER v. JANE JONES |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Error from Doniphan District Court.
ACTION brought by Charles Burkhalter against Jane Jones, for the purpose of having an alleged contract corrected and reformed and specifically enforced. The case was submitted to the court, without a jury, and the court made the following findings, to wit:
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT.
'NORMAL Aug. 10th, 1883.
'MRS. N. N. JONES.'
(Directed) 'Mr. Charles Burkhalter, Troy, Kansas.'
'TROY, KANSAS, August, 1883.
'MRS. N. N. JONES, Normal, Ill.--Dear Madam: Yours of 9th received. As regards the land that I have been corresponding with your late husband about, I made him an offer some time ago of $ 40 per acre. When I made that offer there was another party would have taken the south part of it at that price, and I was willing to pay that amount for the north part, but taking the whole of it together I think $ 35 is a big price for it. To buy the land now and pay cash down, and not get possession until next spring, and have the taxes to pay on it this fall, I would not want to pay over two thousand dollars for the sixty acres. And counting taxes and interest on the money, that would make it a little over $ 35 per acre. The other party will not stand in with me now. The land is rather in bad condition; it has been badly washed. If that will buy the land, I will take it and pay all the money down.
'Yours respectfully, C. BURKHALTER.
'P. S.--If that will buy the land, please let me hear from you soon. I have another trade in view here, which would conflict with this.
C. B.'
'NORMAL, Aug. 21.
'MRS. JANE JONES.'
(Directed) 'Charles Burkhalter, Troy, Kansas.'
'TROY, KANSAS, Aug. 23, 1883.
'CHARLES BURKHALTER.'
'TROY, KANSAS, Aug. 28, 1883.
'MRS. JANE JONES, Normal, Ill.--Dear Madam: Your deed and papers were shown me this morning by Mr. Border, banker; papers and deed all right, with the exception of the amount to be paid for land. I think you will find by my letter in which I made you offer, that I stated that I would not pay over $ 2,000 for the sixty acres; that, counting taxes this fall and interest on money, would be equivalent to $ 35 per acre, or words to that effect; that is, by the time I could get possession the first of next March. Hoping that when you come to re-reading my letter you will see that I am correct in what I claim, you will have your bankers rectify the mistake, and oblige Yours respectfully,
'CHAS. BURKHALTER.
'P. S.--Please write me as soon as convenient, and oblige.
C. B.
'The offer was really 33 1/3 dollars per acre, but you will see on figuring the interest on two thousand from Sept. 1st to March 1st, 1884, together with about $ 40 taxes this fall, that I will be paying a little over $ 35 per acre.
C. B.'
'NORMAL, ILL., Sept. 2.
'JANE M. JONES.'
'NORMAL, Sept. 2, 1883.
'JANE M. JONES.'
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frederich v. Union Electric L. & P. Co.
...on Fraud and Mistake, p. 411; 25 R.C.L., sec. 44, p. 241; Hastings v. Montgomery, 122 S.E. 155; Mansfield v. Sherman, 81 Me. 365; Burkhalter v. Jones, 32 Kan. 5; Kelley v. York Cliffs Imp. Co., 94 Me. 374, 47 Atl. 898; Chaplin v. Korber Realty Co., 224 Pac. 396, 29 N.M. 567; Moore v. McKill......
-
Frederich v. Union Elec. Light & Power Co.
...Fraud and Mistake, p. 411; 25 R. C. L., sec. 44, p. 241; Hastings v. Montgomery, 122 S.E. 155; Mansfield v. Sherman, 81 Me. 365; Burkhalter v. Jones, 32 Kan. 5; Kelley v. York Cliffs Imp. Co., 94 Me. 374, 47 898; Chaplin v. Korber Realty Co., 224 P. 396, 29 N. M. 567; Moore v. McKillip, 110......
-
Public Water Supply Dist. of Pemiscot County No. 1 v. Fowlkes
...Werner v. Rawson, 89 Ga. 619, 15 S.E. 813, 814--815(1); Smith v. Toth, 61 Ind.App. 42, 111 N.E. 442, 444--445(5); Burkhalter v. Jones, 32 Kan. 5, 3 P. 559, 564--565. But this case shows something more than that. We think it could reasonably be found that the defendant understood that she wa......
-
Chute v. Quincy
...Eq. 224; Eastland v. Vanarsdel, 3 Bibb, 274;Bowen v. Waters, 2 Paine, 1;Veth v. Gierth, 92 Mo. 97, 4 S.W.Rep. 432; Burkhalter v. Jones, 32 Kan. 5,3 Pac.Rep. 559. The recently decided case of Mansfield v. Sherman, 81 Me. 365, 17 Atl.Rep. 300, is identical in principle with the one at bar. Th......