Gamble v. Garlock

• Decision Date: 10 November 1911
• Citation: 116 Minn. 59,133 N.W. 175
• Parties: GAMBLE v. GARLOCK.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

116 Minn. 59

133 N.W. 175

GAMBLE

v.GARLOCK.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 10, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Wilbur F. Booth, Judge.

Action by David F. Gamble against Eva S. Garlock. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

The option contract of purchase involved in this action was a mere offer to sell the premises until a stipulated date. It conferred no interest in the premises until accepted, and it took effect from the date of acceptance. The buildings on the premises having been destroyed by fire before the date of acceptance, equity will not decree a specific performance of the contract, with an abatement in the stipulated price equal to the value of the lost improvements. C. H. Christopherson, for appellant.

Harlan P. Roberts, for respondent.

LEWIS, J.

On the 23d day of March, 1911, defendant leased to the plaintiff for the period of eight months her house and lot at Minnetonka, in consideration of the sum of $450, to be paid on or before the 1st day of April, 1911. The lease contained the usual covenants, and was signed and sealed by both parties. On the same day, by a separate instrument, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a writing whereby defendant granted the plaintiff the option for 90 days from the 1st day of April, 1911, to purchase the premises described in the lease for the sum of $6,000, less the $450 paid for rent. The instrument contained a provision that the plaintiff should signify his intention to take the property by due notice in writing, and should perform the conditions and terms of the option within the time specified, and that a failure so to do should terminate the option, and all rights thereunder, without further act or notice whatsoever, time being of the essence of the contract. The complaint states that plaintiff paid the $450 rental, and that a fire occurred on the 27th day of April, 1911, which destroyed the house and contents; that the house was worth $4,000, and the contents $500; that on the 3d day of May, 1911, the plaintiff offered to fulfill his option, and to pay the $6,000 on the property, less the $450 rental already paid, and in said offer demanded that a proper allowance be made for the destruction of the buildings and furniture. The relief demanded in the complaint was that the amount of damages to the property by the destruction of the buildings and furniture, and the amount of insurance, be ascertained, and a decree entered specifying the amount to be credited to the plaintiff upon the purchase price, and for specific performance. Defendant demurred to the complaint, upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the demurrer was overruled.

The learned trial court was of the opinion that the case was controlled by the reasoning in Williams v. Lilley, 67 Conn. 50, 34 Atl. 765,37 L. R. A. 150. In that case the tenant had leased the...