Fleming v. Anderson
Decision Date | 06 June 1921 |
Parties | FLEMING v. ANDERSON. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; Charles Henson, Judge.
Action by Laura A. Fleming against C. M. "Anderson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J. F. Joines and O. L. Cravens, both of Neosho, for appellant.
Chas. E. Prettyman, Jr., of Neosho, for respondent.
This suit was commenced as an action in ejectment; it was converted into one in equity by the answer, which set up a contract of sale of the premises in controversy and prayed its specific enforcement. The pleadings were sufficient to afford a foundation for the reception of the evidence that was introduced, and a statement of the latter will disclose the contested issues.
Plaintiff, a negro woman, owned a small house and two lots in the city of Neosho. She formerly resided there, but since 1904 had been living at Muskogee, Okl. One Steven Washington, also a negro, was a preacher, living at Neosho; he was pastor of one of the negro churches at that place. Some time in June, 1917, he was visiting in Muskogee and became acquainted with plaintiff. She told him of the property she owned at Neosho, that she desired to sell it, that she wanted $600 for it, and that if he would find a buyer at that price she would give him $50. He thereupon prepared the following writing, which they both signed:
Exhibit B.
Washington, shortly after his return to Neosho, opened negotiations with defendant with a view to selling him plaintiff's property. While these negotiations were pending, and before any agreement had been reached, on June 30, 1917, Washington had Mr. A. R. Dunn, a lawyer of Neosho, prepare a deed from plaintiff to Anderson; this deed Washington mailed to plaintiff with a letter as follows:
Exhibit G.
Plaintiff's real estate was not correctly described in the deed, and she returned it to Washington with a letter of which the following is a copy:
Exhibit I.
Upon receipt of this letter and deed, Washington took them to Mr. Dunn, who, after examining the records for himself, prepared a second deed. At the same time he wrote a letter to plaintiff for Washington, and the latter signed it. Both were mailed to plaintiff July 2, 1917. The letter was as follows:
Exhibit A.
At the time this last letter was written, Washington and defendant had come to an agreement with respect to the terms of sale, but the agreement had not been reduced to writing. On the next day they executed the following contract:
Exhibit F.
The said C. M. Anderson agrees, in consideration of the transfer of the property above set forth, to transfer to the said Steven Washington, as Agent aforesaid in behalf of the said Laura A. Ratliff, one Ford car, 1912 model, at a consideration of $145, said car to be in first-class mechanical condition and clear of all incumbrances; also one horse (stallion) at a consideration of $300; the above said car and horse to be applied on the payment of the above-mentioned real estate at the figures above mentioned; also to pay to the said Steven Washington the cash sum of $100 upon the signing of this contract, the remainder of said purchase price, to wit, the sum of $55 to be paid in monthly installments at the rate of $10 per month, to be paid on the 1st day of each and every month after the signing of this contract, making a total sum of $600 as the consideration for the transfer of said real estate.
On the day that the contract was signed defendant paid Washington $100 and turned over to him the horse and car therein described. The automobile was in a garage at the time being repaired. Washington put defendant into possession of the premises about July 10, 1917, and the latter shortly thereafter expended from $110 to $115 in making repairs. On July 19, 1917, plaintiff mailed the deed to the Savings Bank of Neosho, with the following letter of instructions:
Exhibit E.
On the same day she sent the deed to the bank she wrote Washington as follows:
"Muskogee, Okla., July 19, 1917.
It seems that plaintiff did not properly subscribe the deed, and that it was returned to her for signature, as indicated by the following letter:
Exhibit L.
Subsequently the following letters were exchanged between plaintiff and the bank, and between plaintiff and Washington, as indicated by them:
Exhibit O.
Exhibit J.
Exhibit N.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Faught v. Washam
...in the shell and to miss the kernel witnin. Furthermore, 'in its genuine sense, ratification depends upon intention' [Fleming v. Anderson, Mo., 232 S.W. 718, 723--see also Restatement of Agency 2d, Sec. 95, Comment a, p. 246]; and certainly we cannot say that the peculiar facts of this case......
- Parker v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
-
Jewell Realty Co. v. Dierks
... ... Bay v. Wank, ... 215 Mo.App. 153, 255 S.W. 325; Smith v. Allen, 86 ... Mo. 178; Glass v. Rowe, 103 Mo. 537; Fleming v ... Anderson, 232 S.W. 718; Tracy v. Aldrich, 236 ... S.W. 347; Clubb v. Scullin, 139 S.W. 420; Hutton ... v. Sherrard, 183 Mich. 356, ... ...
-
Eisenbeis v. Shillington
... ... Dreckshage, 227 S.W. 929; 58 C. J. 868; 25 R. C. L. 234; ... State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haid, 332 Mo ... 701, 60 S.W.2d 41; Fleming v. Anderson, 232 S.W ... 718; Ivory v. Murphy, 36 Mo. 534. (a) The ... requirement with respect to mutuality of obligation and of ... remedy as a ... ...