Fox v. Courtney

Citation20 S.W. 20,111 Mo. 147
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Decision Date01 July 1892
PartiesFOX <I>et al.</I> v. COURTNEY.

Action by Lansdale Fox and M. H. Fox against C. C. Courtney for breach of contract. Defendant obtained judgment. Plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

H. B. Johnson, L. H. Waters, and Karnes & Ess, for plaintiffs in error. John W. Snyder, for defendant in error.

MACFARLANE, J.

The action was for alleged breach of contract in failing to purchase of plaintiff 33 feet of ground on the east side of Grand avenue, lying between Missouri avenue and Sixth street, and fronting on Grand avenue, in Kansas City, Mo., as agreed under the following contract: "I agree to purchase of Lansdale Fox and M. H. Fox ground lying between Missouri avenue and Sixth street on the east side of Grand avenue, at four hundred ($400) dollars per front foot, payment to be made as follows: $500 down to bind the sale, one third in thirty days, and one third in one, and one third in two, years, at eight per cent. interest. April 2nd, '86. [Signed] C. C. COURTNEY. Received of C. C. Courtney $1.00 on above. April 2nd, '86. [Signed] M. H. Fox." Plaintiffs charged that on the day of the execution of said contract and in consideration thereof, and relying thereon, they entered into a contract in writing with the owner in fee of said 33 feet of ground for the purchase thereof, to whom they paid $100 cash to bind the bargain. That on the same day "they offered to defendant the same under the writing aforesaid, and on the terms therein agreed upon, and that they were ready and willing to convey or cause to be conveyed to defendant the said premises on the terms and at the price agreed upon, but defendant then and there refused to purchase the said property of plaintiffs as he agreed to do as aforesaid." They further charged that they were compelled to sell said ground for the best price they could obtain, at a loss of $5,575, for which they asked judgment. A general demurrer to this petition was sustained, and the case is brought to this court on writ of error.

1. Several objections are made in this court to the sufficiency of the petition. One of these is that the contract is not sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, on account of the uncertainty in the description of the land which is the subject-matter of the contract. We think this objection to the petition insuperable, and no other ground of demurrer need be considered. The general rule given by Browne on the Statutes of Frauds (section 371) is that the writing required by the statute "must contain the essential terms of the contract, expressed with such a degree of certainty that it may be understood without recourse to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT