Clark v. Neumann
| Decision Date | 20 October 1898 |
| Citation | 56 Neb. 374,76 N.W. 892 |
| Parties | CLARK ET AL. v. NEUMANN ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Four separate and complete written agreements, contemporaneously executed, claiming no relationship with one another, and each evidencing the sale of one-quarter of a certain section of land, cannot, in an action to enforce a vendor's lien, be treated as interdependent parts of a single, indivisible contract.
2. An attempted forfeiture of a land contract will not be effective when both parties subsequently deal with the contract and the land as though there had been no rescission.
3. In an action on land contracts to enforce a vendor's lien, an alleged tender by the defendant should be kept good by bringing the money into court.
4. The findings and decree in an action in equity should respond to all the material issues presented by the pleadings.
Appeal from district court, Cheyenne county; Neville, Judge.
Action by S. H. H. Clark and another, receivers of the Union Pacific Railway Company, against Henry Neumann and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.W. R. Kelly and E. P. Smith, for appellants.
J. L. McIntosh, for appellees.
This action was commenced in the district court to foreclose four land contracts executed by the Union Pacific Railway Company to Henry Neumann, on July 17, 1884. From a decree in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs have appealed. Each of the contracts in suit was for one-quarter of section 31 in township 14 N., of range 47 W., of the sixth P. M., being in Cheyenne county, in this state. The contracts covering the north half of the land were numbered, respectively, 78,084 and 78,085; the others were numbered 78,086 and 78,087. It seems that the north half of the section is, and was at the time of the sale, much more valuable than the south half; and that the railroad company, with the view of making a single sale of the entire tract, fixed its average value at five dollars per acre. Whether Neumann was informed of this fact at the time he purchased the land does not appear, as there is in the record no evidence of any negotiations preceding the execution of the contracts. It is shown, however, by his admission, that he could not have bought the north half of the section without buying the south half. The contention of the receivers is that there was but one transaction between the parties, and that the several written agreements executed by the company to Mr. Neumann are interdependent parts of a single indivisible contract. The difficulty with this position is that the contracts claim no relationship with one another. Whatever may have been the reason for dividing the transaction into four separate and distinct parts, it is entirely certain that such division has been made. Each contract, under the issues of this case, is the exclusive evidence of the rights and obligations of the parties resulting from the sale of 160 acres of land. No one of the contracts contains any reference to any of the others. Each fixes the price of the quarter section therein described, imposes on the purchaser the duty of paying the same in 10 equal annual installments, reserves to the company the right of forfeiture for nonpayment, and provides for the delivery of a deed of conveyance when the full consideration has been paid. The contracts themselves are the best and only competent evidence of the intention of the parties. Had the company intended to reserve a vendor's lien on all the land as security for the entire purchase money, it is reasonable to suppose the evidence of that purpose would have appeared in the contracts. To charge the north half of the section with the amounts delinquent on the contracts for the south half would, doubtless, accomplish substantial justice between the parties; but it could not be done without disregarding their express agreement, and releasing the company from its stipulation to make a deed of conveyance for each quarter section as soon as the consideration therefor should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial