Chambers v. Roseland

• Decision Date: 29 May 1907
• Citation: 21 S.D. 298,112 N.W. 148
• Parties: CHAMBERS v. ROSELAND.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

21 S.D. 298

112 N.W. 148

CHAMBERS

v.ROSELAND.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

May 29, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Faulk County.

Action by C. B. Chambers against Martin Roseland. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Frank Turner, for appellant.

J. H. Bottum, for respondent.

FULLER, P. J.

The purpose of this action was to obtain judgment for the specific performance of the following written instrument: “$25.00 Faulkton, Jan. 15, 1902. Received of C. B. Chambers twenty-five dollars on purchase price of $400.00 cash for the N. W. of Sec. 30-117-71; M. Roseland to furnish warrantee deed & clear abstract & sale to be completed in 30 days or this contract is forfeited. C. B. Chambers to receive $25 com. on the same. [Signed] Martin Roseland.” Taking the view that the foregoing is a mere option which was forfeited by the failure of plaintiff to pay, or offer to pay, the balance of the $400 purchase price within 30 days, the trial court declined to enforce specific performance, and dismissed the action, with costs adjudged in favor of defendant. While the trial took a limitless course as to the admission of testimony without objection upon the record by counsel for either party, it may be presumed, for the purposes of this case, that the court considered only that which was proper evidence and within the issues made by the pleadings.

As the right to the equitable remedy of specific performance depends upon a specific contract, the terms of which are fair and unequivocal, the written instrument made the basis of the action is decisive of this appeal, and it is needless to consider certain clerical inaccuracies contained in a purported copy thereof set out in the findings of fact. Manifestly, it is a poorly drawn paper, and, whether considered with or without the oral testimony introduced to explain ambiguities, supply omissions, and present the diverse views of the parties as to what was intended, there is ample ground for reasonable doubt as to its legal effect. True, the purchase price is fixed at $400 cash, and the receipt of $25 thereof acknowledged by respondent, who undertook the obligation of furnishing a warranty deed and clear abstract of title, so that the transaction might be completed within 30 days from January 15, 1902, but no purchaser or grantee is named in the instrument. The recital that C. B. Chambers is to receive a commission of $25 from some undisclosed party fixes his status as an agent, and...