Gira v. Harris
Decision Date | 12 June 1901 |
Citation | 86 N.W. 624,14 S.D. 537 |
Parties | GIRA et al. v. HARRIS. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Custer county; Levi McGee, Judge.
Suit by Frank A. Gira and others against Jesse Harris for the specific performance of a contract to convey land. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Ed. L Grantham and A. T. Feay, for appellant. W. G. Benedict, B. R Wood, and C. S. Smith, for respondents.
This is an action by the plaintiffs to enforce the specific performance of a contract entered into by the defendant with Charles Rhodes, one of the plaintiffs, in which it is claimed said Rhodes was acting for and in behalf of all the plaintiffs. Findings and judgment were in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals.
The contract in controversy is as follows: The court finds that $200 was paid upon this contract prior to and on the 26th day of May, 1899, and that at that time the contract was extended to June 7, 1899. The receipt for the money paid on that date and the extension of time read as follows: Among other findings, the court finds: "That on June 7, 1899, these plaintiffs tendered the defendant the balance of the purchase price in lawful money of the United States, less the sum of $10, which the plaintiffs agreed to pay on the morning of June 8, 1899, and the defendant, by his conduct, led plaintiffs to believe that the payment of the whole sum on the following morning would be satisfactory to him, and demanded of the defendant the execution and delivery of the deed of the property hereinbefore described; that the defendant refused to accept the money, and refused to make the deed; that the plaintiffs had complied with all the terms of said contract of purchase on their part, but the defendant refused to give the deed, and now refuses to give the same; that the contract for the purchase of said ground was made and entered into for the express benefit of all these plaintiffs; that Rhodes was acting for the plaintiff; that the said plaintiffs in this action planted a crop upon said land consisting of potatoes and grasses growing upon the land; that the plaintiffs in this action lost all of said crop; that it was converted to the use of the defendant by the defendant; that the value of the rents, issues, and profits of said premises was $200." From these findings the court concludes as matter of law that the agreement was substantially complied with on the part of the plaintiffs, and that they are entitled to a deed for said property; that $100 of the damages for the use and occupation of the property be set off against the purchase price; and judgment was entered accordingly.
It is contended on the part of the appellant that the court erred in construing the contract to constitute a purchase of the property, and that the contract is not a contract of purchase for...
To continue reading
Request your trial