Clark v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 03 November 1881
• Parties: CLARK v. DAVIDSON.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

53 Wis. 317

10 N.W. 384

CLARK

v.DAVIDSON.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed November 3, 1881.

Appeal from circuit court, Green Lake county.

A. Scott Sloan, for respondent.

Fish & Thompson, for appellant.

COLE, C. J.

It is quite evident that the plaintiff recovered four dollars per day for the work of himself and team; one dollar and fifty cents for seed wheat, and 75 cents for seed oats, which were used on the farm; and pay for improvements made, in pursuance of the special contract made with the administrator. That was the rate of compensation agreed upon in that contract, which the referee and circuit court found was made. But the difficulty with this aspect of the case grows out of the fact that this special contract, as we understand the testimony and findings, forms a part of the original parol agreement for the sale of the farm. That agreement was plainly void under the statute of frauds. If the special contract as to the price to be paid for the labor of the plaintiff and team per day, and for the seed-grain, constitutes and forms, as we think it does, a part of the original parol agreement for the sale of the real estate, we cannot see how there can be any recovery upon it. The whole contract, being entire and indivisible, falls to the ground. At first we had some doubt as to whether the contract for labor, etc., formed such an essential part of the original parol agreement, in regard to the sale of the farm, that it might not be separated from it and stand by itself. We are, however, satisfied that it cannot be. The contract, as to the compensation the plaintiff was to receive for his labor, etc., was connected with the original parol agreement for the purchase of the farm for $2,985, on the terms agreed upon. These different stipulations were really inducements or in the nature of considerations for each other.

It is true the plaintiff first went into possession about the third of April, 1874, under the parol contract to purchase. But when it was found there were difficulties in the way of the administrator making title, then this agreement as to compensation for labor, etc., in the event the plaintiff failed to obtain the farm, was added to or grafted upon the original agreement. The contract, therefore, upon which the plaintiff relies to recover compensation at the rate of four dollars per day for the labor of himself and team, and the price for the seed-grain used, being a part of the parol agreement for the sale of the farm to him, was void because not in writing. Consequently there could be no recovery upon it. But the court found that, without any fault either of plaintiff or defendant, the plaintiff failed to get title to the farm, and that it was subsequently conveyed to a third party. But the plaintiff seems to have gone into possession in good faith, relying on...