Carlsen v. Hay
Decision Date | 10 January 1921 |
Docket Number | 9748. |
Citation | 69 Colo. 485,195 P. 103 |
Parties | CARLSEN v. HAY et al. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Larimer County; George H. Bradfield Judge.
Action by E. B. Hay and another against C. C. Carlsen. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Paul W. Lee and George H. Shaw, both of Ft Collins, for plaintiff in error.
Stow Stover & Mantz, of Ft. Collins, for defendants in error.
This action was by the defendants in error to compel the specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real estate.
The defendants in error, plaintiffs below, lived in Larimer county, Colo., and the plaintiff in error resided at Loup City, Neb. The land had been listed for sale by the defendant with Carl Anderson, a real estate agent at Ft. Collins, Colo.
The contract relied upon grew out of certain letters and telegrams exchanged between Anderson and defendant Carlsen. These were as follows:
Telegram from Carlsen to Anderson:
Telegram from Anderson to Carlsen:
Letter from Carlsen to Anderson:
C. C. Carlsen.'
Letter from Carlsen to Anderson:
'Loup City, Neb., June 24, 1918.
'Yours very truly.
C. C. Carlsen.'
Telegram from Carlsen to Anderson:
'Loup City, Neb., June 24, 1918.
Telegram from Carlsen to Anderson:
'Loup City, Neb., June 26, 1918.
Telegram from Anderson to Carlsen:
'Ft. Collins, Colo., June 26, 1918.
It was beyond the power of Carlsen at the time of trial to specifically perform, and the court gave judgment in damages in the sum of $500, which judgment is now before us for review.
It is contended that Anderson, the agent, was simply an agent or broker to find a purchaser, and had no authority to execute a written contract of sale binding the landowner, and the case of W. T. Craft Realty Co. v. Livernash, 27 Colo.App. 1, 146 P. 121, and many...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shea v. Second Nat. Bank, 8234.
...C. C. tariff rules); Bennett v. Cummings, 73 Kan. 647, 653, 85 P. 755, 757 (reserving right to insist upon honest weight); Carlsen v. Hay, 69 Colo. 485, 195 P. 103; Ryder v. Johnston, 153 Ala. 482, 45 So. 4 6 Cir., 253 F. 165, 167, 1 A.L.R. 1497. See I Williston, Contracts (Rev. Ed. 1936) §......
-
Atchison v. City of Englewood, 26756
...Prosser v. Schmidt, 118 Colo. 502, 197 P.2d 318 (1948); McCart v. Johnston, 79 Colo. 397, 246 P. 259 (1926); Carlsen v. Hay, 69 Colo. 485, 195 P. 103 (1921); Mullen v. McKim, 22 Colo. 468, 45 P. 416 (1896). Where damages are awarded for breach of an option to purchase, whether the option pr......
-
Pierce v. Marland Oil Co. of Colorado
...rule is still extant, that a completed contract may be so evidenced. Marti-Matter Co. v. Thomas, 70 Colo. 478, 202 P. 703; Carlsen v. Hay, 69 Colo. 485, 195 P. 103; v. Book Cliff R. Co., 70 Colo. 441, 201 P. 1026. 3. In the Marti-Matter Co. Case, supra, we said, at page 481 of the reported ......
-
Van Hall v. Gehrke, 15824.
... ... counsel, in their brief, state that this case involves but ... one question. We do not deny their statement that parties may ... enter into an enforceable contract merely by an exchange of ... correspondence, Marti-Matter Co. v. Thomas et al., ... 70 Colo. 478, 202 P. 703; Carlsen v. Hay et al., 69 ... Colo. 485, 195 P. 103; but that does not dispose of the ... question whether a contract was so consummated in the instant ... case. The contending parties in the latter cited case, and ... also in Williams, Adm'x v. Wagers, supra, were a ... landowner and his agent. If ... ...