Charpiot v. Sigerson

• Decision Date: 31 March 1857
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: CHARPIOT, Respondent, v. SIGERSON, Appellant.^a1

25 Mo. 63

CHARPIOT, Respondent,

v.SIGERSON, Appellant.^a1

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1857.

1. The possession that will be deemed such a part performance of a parol contract for the sale of land as will take the case out of the statute of frauds, is an actual possession taken by the vendee under the contract, with the consent of the vendor, and with a view to the performance of the contract, and not the constructive possession which the law imputes to the owner when there is no actual adverse possession in a stranger.

2. In order to take a case out of the statute of frauds, on the ground of a part performance of a parol contract for the sale of land, the acts relied on should be definite and referable exclusively to the contract, and the contract itself should be fully established in all its essential terms.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

This was an action to enforce specific performance of a contract of sale of land. Issues were framed and submitted to a jury, and the following, among other instructions, was given to the jury: “1. Possession of the land in question, as mentioned in the pleadings, may be either actual or constructive. Actual possession needs no explanation; it may be seen there for itself. It may be with or without inclosures, buildings or cultivation. Constructive possession is different; as where a man has title to land, though it be wild and untenanted, if no person have actual, adverse possession, the law imputes the possession to the rightful owner. Also where a man has good title to land (no other person being in adverse possession), and exercises over it such acts of ownership as men do ordinarily exercise over their wild and untenanted lands, the law regards such acts of ownership as good evidence of possession on the part of the claimant.”

The jury found “that the contract, as stated in the petition, was made verbally, and confirmed in writing; that defendant had notice of such contract before the making of the deed from James Sigerson [the vendor] to John Sigerson, the defendant; that James Sigerson did surrender the ground in dispute to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did take and keep possession thereof as stated in the petition.” The court rendered a decree for plaintiff.

W. L. Williams, for appellant.

A. J. P. Garesché and Primm, for respondent.

LEONARD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

We reverse this judgment on account of the instruction in reference to possession. In applying the equity of specific performance to real estate, there is a modification of a rule of statute law, which at first sight appears inconsistent with it, and repugnant to the maxim that “equity follows the law.” The modification to which we refer is that of enforcing parol contracts relating to land on the ground that they have been already performed in part. The wisdom of allowing this deviation from the written law has...