Evans v. Miller
| Decision Date | 05 March 1888 |
| Citation | 38 Minn. 245,36 N.W. 640 |
| Parties | EVANS v MILLER ET AL. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Case considered as showing such part performance of an agreement for the sale of land that specific performance should be decreased.1
The defendants cannot complain that the plaintiff, being still in possession, is allowed to recover damages for the refusal to convey, (unless the defendants should convey within a specified time,) since they may satisfy the judgment by conveying as they should be required to do.
Appeal from district court, Le Sueur county; EDSON, Judge.
Action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, brought by Evans against Miller & Phelps. The defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, allowing damages unless defendants comply with the terms of contract within a specified time.
J. B. Phelps, for appellants.
Peck & Brown, for respondent.
This action is to compel the specific performance of an agreement of the defendants for the conveyance of a lot of land to the plaintiff or for damages. The complaint alleges the making of the agreement, and the execution by the defendants of their written obligation to convey, being in the form of a bond for a deed, except that it was not under seal; that pursuant thereto the plaintiff went into possession, and erected a house, and made other improvements, at an expenditure of $1,000; alleges a tender of the agreed price as named in the writing, and the defendants' refusal to convey. The answer admits the making and delivery of the written instrument, the possession of the plaintiff, and the erection of the house, with the consent of the defendants, subsequent to the execution and delivery of the writing; but puts in issue the alleged value of the improvements, and the tender of the price. The evidence sustained the complaint, as to the matters in issue, and the court made its decision to the effect, that unless within a time specified the defendants should convey the premises and accept the price tendered, the plaintiff should have judgment for $800.
As to the defendants' contention that there was no completed contract, it is enough to say that the case, as admitted in the answer, is one where there has been such part performance that equity will compel complete performance. The defendants executed and delivered this instrument, which expressed their obligation to convey, upon the payment of a specified price. They le...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake Erie & W.R. Co. v. Griffin
...road, as required by the statute.” The court did not decide upon the measure of damages. On a subsequent appeal in the same case (38 Minn. 215, 36 N. W. 640) it was held that the diminution in the rental value of the farm from such cause was a proper measure of damages, and that such damage......
- Coleman v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
- Coleman v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.