Galway v. Shields

• Decision Date: 31 October 1877
• Citation: 66 Mo. 313
• Parties: GALWAY et al. v. SHIELDS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

66 Mo. 313

GALWAY et al.

v.SHIELDS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1877.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

This was an action for the value of goods sold and delivered by respondents to appellant. The goods were delivered in pursuance of a verbal contract, by which payment therefor was to be made in certain real estate in the city of St. Louis, at a specific valuation, to be conveyed to respondents by appellant. A proper deed of the real estate had been executed and tendered to respondents, but was by them refused. The cause was tried by one of the judges of the St. Louis circuit court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of respondents for the value of the goods, in the sum of $4,253.85. This judgment was, on appeal, affirmed in general term and also by the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Gottschalk for appellant.

1. Respondents sell merchandise to appellant, which is to be paid for in land; they then deliver the merchandise, and turn round and refuse to receive the land. Can they do this, and will the law tolerate such conduct? Sug. on Vend., (8th Am. Ed.,) Vol. 1 p. 231, note, Chap. 4, Sec. 7; Lane v. Schackford, 5 N. H. 130; Shaw v. Shaw, 6 Vt. 69; Collier v. Coates, 17 Barb. 471; Dowdle v. Camp, 12 Johns. 451; Philbrook v. Belknap, 6 Vt. 383; Crane v.Gough, 4 Md. 333; McDonald v. Lynch, 59 Mo. 350; Self v. Cordell, 45 Mo. 345; Kratz v. Stocke, 42 Mo. 354.

Finkelnburg & Rassieur for respondents.

1. Payment, even if in full discharge of the contract, will not justify equitable relief by the enforcement of specific performance of a parol contract for the purchase of land. Payment is not deemed such part performance of the contract as will take the case out of the statute of frauds. Bean v. Valle, 2 Mo. 139; Chambers v. Lecompte, 9 Mo. 569; Johnson v. McGruder, 15 Mo. 365; Tibeau v. Tibeau, 19 Mo. 78; Despain v. Carter, 21 Mo. 331; White v. Watkins 23 Mo. 423, 428; Charpiot v. Sigerson, 25 Mo. 63; Dickerson v. Chrisman, 28 Mo. 134; Young v. Montgomery, 28 Mo. 604; Price v. Hart, 29 Mo. 171; Tatum v. Brookes, 51 Mo. 148; Bowles v. Wathan, 54 Mo. 262; Ells v. Pacific R. R., 51 Mo. 204.

HOUGH, J.

The only question presented by the record in this case is, whether a person who has paid money or property, upon a verbal contract for the purchase of lands, can maintain an action to recover back the money or the value of the property so paid, although the vendor of the land, to whom the money or property has been paid, is willing to execute the contract on his part.

This question was decided by the Court of Appeals in the affirmative. We do not controvert the doctrine on which that court founded its opinion, that the payment of the purchase money is not such part performance as will take a verbal contract for the sale of lands out of the scope of the statute of frauds; that rule is now thoroughly established. But the relations of the parties in the case at bar are not such as to warrant the invocation of that rule. It will readily be conceded, that if the plaintiffs here were seeking to enforce the parol contract against the defendant, the mere fact that he had paid the purchase money, would not entitle him to a decree for specific performance; and we do not understand the authorities cited by the learned judge who delivered the opinion of the Court of Appeals to go further than this. In cases like the present, however, a different rule prevails.

In Coughlin v. Knowles, 7 Met. (Mass.,) 57, it was held that “an oral contract for the sale of land is not utterly void; and therefore a party who advances money on such contract, cannot recover it back, if the other party is able and willing to fulfill the contract on his part.” This decision was affirmed in Wetherbee v. Potter, 99 Mass. 361. In Sims v. Hutchins, 8 Smeedes & Mar. 331, Chief Justice Sharkey said: “That the contract was not in writing may be good ground of defense, when specific performance of the contract is sought against the vendor, for whose benefit the statute was passed; but if the vendor is willing to perform, the price paid cannot be recovered back.” To the same effect are Shaw v. Shaw, 6 Vt. 69; Philbrook v. Belknap, ib. 383, and Hawley v. Moody, 24 Vt. 605.

In Lane v. Shackford, 5 N. H. 130, the opinion of the court on this subject was expressed in the following strong and emphatic language: “If one man contracts with another to perform labor, and receive as a compensation the conveyance of a particular tract of land, although the contract to convey the land is not a proper foundation for an action, yet still common honesty and fair dealing require that he shall not be at liberty to refuse the land and demand money, until the other party has refused to execute the contract.” Richards v. Allen, 17 Maine 296, and Bedinger v. Whittemore, 2 J. J....