Douglas v. Vorpahl
| Decision Date | 03 April 1918 |
| Citation | 166 N.W. 833,167 Wis. 244 |
| Parties | DOUGLAS v. VORPAHL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Brown County; Henry Graass, Judge.
Action for specific performance of a contract to convey land by O. J. Douglas against Charles Vorpahl. From an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint. The action is brought by the vendor to obtain specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, and the complaint sets forth the making by the parties of an agreement evidenced by the following written memorandum or contract:
“Green Bay, Wis., July 21, 1916.
“Received of Charles Vorpahl $15.00, as part payment of ($2,400.00) twenty-four hundred dollars, when warranty deed and abstract is given to lots Nos. 1 and 2 in Cady and Warren subdivision to the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin.
“O. J. Douglas,
“Per J. L. Wilcox, Agent.”
The question presented on appeal is whether this memorandum or contract is sufficient to satisfy section 2304, Stats. Wis., which requires every such contract “or some note or memorandum thereof expressing the consideration” to be in writing and subscribed by the vendor or his authorized agent.
Bruemmer & Bruemmer, of Kewaunee, for appellant. Kaftan & Reynolds, of Green Bay, for respondent.
WINSLOW, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).
[1][2] Under the decisions of this court the memorandum was clearly sufficient to satisfy the terms of section 2304, Stats. Wis. It was in writing, was subscribed by the vendor's anthorized agent, expressed the consideration, described the property, and was sufficiently definite in its terms so that it can be readily gathered therefrom that it was the intention of the plaintiff to convey and of the defendant to purchase. No time of payment was specified, but this simply means that the payment is to be cash on the delivery of the deed and abstract showing good title; a reasonable time being allowed for examination of the abstract. Schweitzer v. Connor, 57 Wis. 177, 14 N. W. 922;Van Doren v. Roepke, 107 Wis. 535, 83 N. W. 754;Cliver v. Heil, 95 Wis. 364, 70 N. W. 346;Williamson v. Neeves, 94 Wis. 656, 69 N. W. 806;Sizer v. Clark, 116 Wis. 534, 93 N. W. 539.
It is admitted by the complaint that the description is defective because it does not name the block and because there are two Warren subdivisions in the city; however, the principle is familiar that, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kidd v. Early
...Pearlstein v. Novitch, 239 Mass. 228, 131 N.C. 853 (1921); Duke v. Miller, 355 Mich. 540, 94 N.W.2d 819 (1959); Douglas v. Vorpahl, 167 Wis. 244, 166 N.W. 833 (1918). That the foregoing rule has long been the law of this State we have no doubt. It is the view expressed by T. Christopher, Op......
-
Matter of RCR Corp.
...of frauds, secs. 240.06 and 240.08, Stats. 1933, signed by an authorized agent of the vendor is valid and enforceable. Douglas v. Vorpahl, 167 Wis. 244, 166 N.W. 833; Russell v. Ives, 172 Wis. 123, 178 N.W. Jefferson Gardens, 216 Wis. at 233-35, 257 N.W. 154; see also Gilbert v. Jess, 31 Wi......
-
Kuester v. Rowlands
...and may be enforced.’ See Spence v. Frantz, 195 Wis. 69, 217 N.W. 700; Heller v. Baird, 191 Wis. 288, 210 N.W. 680;Douglas v. Vorpahl, 167 Wis. 244, 166 N.W. 833;Inglis v. Fohey, 136 Wis. 28, 116 N.W. 857. The defendants cite Durkin v. Machesky, 177 Wis. 595, 188 N.W. 97, as holding the ins......
-
Predmore v. Brill's Estate (In re Brill's Estate)
...Docter v. Hellberg, 65 Wis. 415, 27 N. W. 176;Wall v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 86 Wis. 48, 56 N. W. 367;Douglas v. Vorpahl, 167 Wis. 244, 166 N. W. 833. The testimony as to the acceptance by the plaintiff of the alleged written contract is not so satisfactory as could be desir......