Fouts v. Foudray
Decision Date | 09 January 1912 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 853 |
Citation | 31 Okla. 221,1912 OK 33,120 P. 960 |
Parties | FOUTS v. FOUDRAY. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. ESCROWS--Passing of Equitable Title--Deed in Escrow. Equity treats things agreed to be done as actually performed, and where real estate is sold under a valid contract, and the deed executed and placed in escrow, to be delivered at a future date on payment of the purchase money, evidenced by promissory note due on said day, the equitable title passes at once to the vendee.
2. VENDOR AND PURCHASER--Destruction of Property--Liability of Vendee. Where buildings are destroyed by fire, without the fault of either party, between the date of the contract of sale and the execution of the deed, and before the delivery thereof, the loss must be borne by the vendee, who holds the equitable title, as the vendor only holds the naked legal title for the use of the vendee.
3. VENDOR AND PURCHASER -- Rights of Parties -- Deed in Escrow. Where a debtor executed a deed, absolute in terms, to his creditor as security for the payment of a debt, with a contemporaneous parol agreement to reconvey on payment thereof, in a suit by said creditor to recover of defendant the purchase money due upon an executory contract of sale of the property, wherein he bound himself to deliver to defendant, through an escrow, a deed therefor on payment of the purchase price, when due, held that, after default in said payment, on a tender of said deed, he was entitled to recover.
Error from District Court, Kay County; Wm. Bowles, Judge.
Action by Charles E. Foudray against Salem Fouts. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. F. King, for plaintiff in error.
John S. Burger, for defendant in error.
¶1 On May 8, 1907, Charles E. Foudray, defendant in error, sued Salem Fouts, plaintiff in error, in the district court of Kay county. His petition substantially states that prior to September 20, 1906, Hubert L. Bainum, being indebted to plaintiff, deeded to him as security for the debt lots 4 and 5 in block 1, in Virginia, Kay county, Okla., at which time it was agreed between them, in parol, that plaintiff would reconvey to him said lots on payment of said debt; that also on said date defendant, Fouts, being indebted to said Bainum, assumed the payment of said debt, and then and there executed to plaintiff his promissory note for $ 865.68, the amount of said indebtedness, due March 27, 1907, with interest, whereupon plaintiff and defendant entered into the following contract in writing:
¶2 That, pursuant thereto, plaintiff placed in said bank said warranty deed to said lots, conveying the same to defendant, together with said contract and note, with instructions to deliver said deed to defendant when said note was paid; that defendant neglected to insure said buildings as required in said contract; that the same was, on October 22, 1906, destroyed by fire, while in his possession, in consequence of which said mortgage security is worthless; that defendant also failed to pay said note, or any part thereof. He tendered into court said warranty deed, and prayed judgment against defendant for the amount of said note and interest, and, in effect, for specific performance of said contract. For answer, defendant admitted the allegations in the petition, alleged that said buildings were destroyed (without fault of either as agreed), by reason of all of which, he says, there was no consideration for said note. Upon this agreed state of facts, there was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings the case here. The question for us to determine is whether he was entitled to recover on the facts as stated, and the inferences fairly arising therefrom.
¶3 The three instruments aforesaid, being part of one and the same transaction, construed together, in effect were a valid executory contract of sale, whereby plaintiff on that day, not only sold, but executed, to defendant a warranty deed to the property, pursuant to said contract. Said deed, in that it read "do by these presents grant, bargain and sell," was a sale in praesenti, and was executory only in the sense that the delivery and receipt of the purchase money agreed to be paid therefor should take place in the future. When this is the case, while the naked legal title remains in the vendor, the equitable title to the property at once passes to the vendee, and with all its attendant benefits and burdens; or, as stated in the syllabus of Dunn v. Yakish, 10 Okla. 388, 61 P. 926:
"Equity treats things agreed to be done as actually performed and when real estate is sold under a valid contract, the purchase money to be paid in part, and the deed executed at a future day, the equitable title passes at once to the vendee. * * * *"
¶4 And in 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., sec 368.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cameron v. State
... ... it has been held that the equitable title vests in the ... grantee. See Jarvis v. Chanslor etc. Co., 20 Ariz ... 134, 177 P. 27; Fouts v. Foudray, 31 Okla. 221, 120 ... P. 960; 38 L.R.A. N.S. 251; Ann. Cas. 1913E 301; Neal v ... Pickett, 280 S.W. 748, 750; Lynn v. McCoy, (Tex ... ...
-
City Guaranty Bank of Hobart v. Boxley
...to his injunction. The case cites the case of Hamilton, Sheriff, v. Brown, 31 Okla. 213, 120 P. 950. ¶31 In the case of Fouts v. Foudray, 31 Okla. 221, 120 P. 960, the court, in the first paragraph of the syllabus, says:"Equity treats things agreed to be done as actually performed, and wher......
-
Rose v. Garn
... ... 136, 109 P. 38; Newton ... v. Hull, 90 Cal. 487, 27 P. 429; North ... Stockton v. Fischer, 138 Cal. 100, 70 P. 1082; ... Fouts v. Foudray, 31 Okla. 221, 120 P. 960, ... 38 L.R.A. (N. S.) 256, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 301; Lumber etc., ... Co. v. Town Co., 51 Kan. 394, 32 P. 1100 ... ...
-
Akers v. Brooks
...estate sold, and the purchaser as a trustee for the purchase money for the vendor. Dunn v. Yakish, 10 Okla. 388, 61 P. 926; Fouts v. Foudray, 31 Okla. 221, 120 P. 960; Scott-Baldwin Co. et al. v. McAdams, 43 Okla. 161, 141 P. 770. This action having been brought under the provision of secti......