Golden Valley Land & Cattle Company, a Corp. v. Johnstone
| Decision Date | 18 March 1913 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
On petition for rehearing, April 16, 1913.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court for Billings County Nuchols, J.
Judgment affirmed as modified.
Judgment modified.
Heffron & Baird and J. A. Miller, for appellants.
The defendants had the right to rescind the contract for fraud or to stand on the same and wait for plaintiff to perform as per contract. Haffey v. Lynch, 143 N.Y. 241, 38 N.E 298; Curtis v. Gutz, 90 Iowa 767, 58 N.W. 883; Tharp v. Lee, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 439, 62 S.W. 93; Clover v. Gottlieb, 50 La.Ann. 568, 23 So. 459; Cleveland v. Bergen Bldg. & Improv. Co. N.J.Eq. , 55 A. 117; Page, Contr. § 1434; Taylor v. Longworth, 14 Pet. 172, 10 L.Ed. 405.
To contract to do a thing impossible at the time, but unknown to the other party, is an immediate breach of the contract. Bishop, Contr. 2d ed. § 1427; Woods v. North, 6 Humph. 309, 44 Am. Dec. 312.
Default on part of anyone to a contract excuses nonperformance by the other party. Brace v. Doble, 3 S.D. 110, 52 N.W 586; Peck v. United States, 102 U.S. 64, 26 L.Ed. 46.
A purchaser of land cannot be compelled to execute the contract where vendor has only bond for title. Christian v. Clark, 10 Lea, 630; Fildes v. Hooker, 2 Meriv. 424; Read v. Power, 12 R. I. 16; 3 Parsons, Contr. 9th ed. p. 350, and note.
Until plaintiff had title to the land, defendants made payments to plaintiff at their peril. McCarthy v. Couch, 37 Minn. 124, 33 N.W. 777; Donnelly v. Eastes, 94 Wis. 390, 69 N.W. 157.
Before plaintiff can deprive defendants of their farm, in a court of equity, it should come into such court with clean hands--showing that it has done and is willing to do equity. Lewis v. Holdrege, 56 Neb. 379, 76 N.W. 890; Michigan Pipe Co. v. Fremont Ditch, Pipe Line & Reservoir Co. 49 C. C. A. 324, 111 F. 284; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 401.
Where vendor places himself in a position such as to make it appear that tender will be refused, no tender is necessary before suit, and an offer to bring the money found due into court is sufficient. Deichmann v. Deichmann, 49 Mo. 107; Fall v. Hazelrigg, 45 Ind. 576, 15 Am. Rep. 278; Young v. Daniels, 2 Iowa 126, 63 Am. Dec. 477.
One who signs a contract at the request of the opposite party is a party to such contract, even though her name is not mentioned in the body of the contract. Thompson v. Coffman, 15 Ore. 631, 16 P. 713; Ex parte Fulton, 7 Cow. 484; Scheid v. Leibschultz, 51 Ind. 38; Kendall v. Kendall, 7 Me. 172; Clark v. Rawson, 2 Denio, 135; Martinson v. Regan, 18 N.D. 467, 123 N.W. 285; Galbraith v. Payne, 12 N.D. 164, 96 N.W. 258; Burke v. Scharf, 19 N.D. 227, 124 N.W. 79.
Purcell & Divet, T. F. Murtha, and Engerud, Holt, & Frame, for respondent.
The statement of the case does not contain all the evidence offered, and this court cannot review the case de novo. Security Improv. Co. v. Cass County, 9 N.D. 553, 556, 84 N.W. 477; Douglas v. Glazier, 9 N.D. 615, 84 N.W. 552; Douglas v. Richards, 10 N.D. 367, 87 N.W. 600; Salemonson v. Thompson, 13 N.D. 182, 101 N.W. 320; Stevens v. Myers, 14 N.D. 398, 104 N.W. 529; United States Sav. & Loan Co. v. McLeod, 10 N.D. 111, 86 N.W. 110; Eakin v. Campbell, 10 N.D. 416, 87 N.W. 991; Geils v. Fleugel, 10 N.D. 211, 86 N.W. 712; Kipp v. Angell, 10 N.D. 199, 86 N.W. 706; Douglas v. Glazier, 9 N.D. 615, 84 N.W. 552; Little v. Phinney, 10 N.D. 351, 87 N.W. 593; Rev. Codes, § 7229.
In the abstract, there is a demand for a retrial of all issues, and also an "assignment of errors." Neither of these is printed with and as a part of the statement and this court is without jurisdiction to try the case de novo. Sternberg v. Larson, 20 N.D. 635, 127 N.W. 993; State Finance Co. v. Mather, 15 N.D. 394, 109 N.W. 350, 11 Ann. Cas. 1112; Kelly v. Pierce, 16 N.D. 234, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 180, 112 N.W. 995; Kinney v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen, 15 N.D. 30, 106 N.W. 44; Rule XVII, 6 N.D. XXIII; State v. Wright, 20 N.D. 220, 126 N.W. 1023, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 795; Sucker State Drill Co. v. Brock, 18 N.D. 532, 123 N.W. 667; Smith v. Kunert, 17 N.D. 120, 115 N.W. 76; O'Keefe v. Omlie, 17 N.D. 404, 117 N.W. 353; Marck v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 15 N.D. 86, 105 N.W. 1106.
Defendant Carrie Johnstone was not a party to the contract, so as to acquire any rights to the land in question. Blackmer v. Davis, 128 Mass. 538; Lancaster v. Roberts, 144 Ill. 213, 33 N.E. 27; Evans v. Conklin, 71 Hun, 536, 24 N.Y.S. 1081; Lothrop v. Foster, 51 Me. 367; Cox v. Wells, 7 Blackf. 410, 43 Am. Dec. 98; Davis v. Bartholomew, 3 Ind. 485; M'Farland v. Febiger, 7 Ohio, pt. 1, p. 194, 28 Am. Dec. 632.
The contract in this case was merely a preliminary agreement, and not a complete enforceable contract of which specific performance can be compelled. Sibley v. Felton, 156 Mass. 273, 31 N.E. 10; Los Angeles Immigration & Land Co-op. Asso. v. Phillips, 56 Cal. 545; Kulberg v. Georgia, 10 N.D. 461, 88 N.W. 87.
Plaintiff was in a position to acquire the full legal title to convey to defendant according to agreement, when the time came to do so. Espy v. Anderson, 14 Pa. 311; Irvin v. Bleakley, 67 Pa. 29; Martinson v. Regan, 18 N.D. 467, 123 N.W. 285; Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 312, 3 L.R.A. 739, 12 Am. St. Rep. 736, 41 N.W. 1056; Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307, 25 Am. St. Rep. 123, 27 P. 280; Haffey v. Lynch, 143 N.Y. 241, 38 N.E. 298; Irvin v. Bleakley, 67 Pa. 29; Tierman v. Roland, 15 Pa. 440; Loveridge v. Coles, 72 Minn. 57, 74 N.W. 1109; Robb v. Montgomery, 20 Johns. 15; Runkle v. Johnson, 30 Ill. 328, 83 Am. Dec. 191; Silfver v. Daenzer, 167 Mich. 362, 133 N.W. 16.
Plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to fully perform, and offered to do so. Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307, 25 Am. St. Rep. 123, 27 P. 280; Warvelle, Vend. & P. § 289; Richards Trust Co. v. Beach, 17 S.D. 432, 97 N.W. 358; Stearns v. Clapp. 16 S.D. 558, 94 N.W. 430; Donley v. Porter, 119 Iowa 542, 93 N.W. 574; 3 Page, Contr. §§ 1436-1443; Bryson v. McCone, 121 Cal. 153, 53 P. 637; Stephenson v. Cady, 117 Mass. 6; Armstrong v. St. Paul & P. Coal & I. Co. 48 Minn. 113, 49 N.W. 233, 50 N.W. 1029; Peters Grocery Co. v. Collins Bag Co. 142 N.C. 174, 55 S.E. 90; Johnson Forge Co. v. Leonard, 3 Penn. (Del.) 342, 57 L.R.A. 225, 94 Am. St. Rep. 86, 51 A. 305; Pearce v. Alward, 163 Mich. 313, 128 N.W. 210.
Where it is apparent that an offer to perform would be unavailing, it is not necessary. Fargusson v. Talcott, 7 N.D. 183, 73 N.W. 207; Plummer v. Kelly, 7 N.D. 88, 73 N.W. 70; 36 Cyc. 702.
Where a contract is submitted to the opposite party for examination, and he fails to point out objections, he is estopped to come into court and make them afterwards. Woodward v. McCollum, 16 N.D. 47, 111 N.W. 623; Frenzer v. Dufrene, 58 Neb. 432, 78 N.W. 719; North Dakota Horse & Cattle Co. v. Serumgard, 17 N.D. 478, 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 508, 138 Am. St. Rep. 717, 117 N.W. 453; Rankin v. Rankin, 216 Ill. 132, 74 N.E. 763; Boston & W. Street R. Co. v. Rose, 194 Mass. 142, 80 N.E. 498; Zeimantz v. Blake, 39 Wash. 6, 80 P. 822.
Specific performance of a contract will not be decreed, unless it can be enforced against the party seeking it, were he unwilling. Knudtson Land Co. v. Robinson, 18 N.D. 12, 118 N.W. 1051; 36 Cyc. 622, note 19; Pom. Spec. Perf. 406; Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 112 Minn. 388, 128 N.W. 459, 21 Ann. Cas. 837; George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338, 37 N.W. 791; Steiner v. Zwickey, 41 Minn. 448, 43 N.W. 376; Bigler v. Morgan, 77 N.Y. 312; Maupin, Marketable Title, 2d ed. p. 47; Hussey v. Roquemore, 27 Ala. 281; Coffin v. Heath, 6 Met. 76; Whitney v. Stearns, 11 Met. 319; St. Clair v. Smith, 3 Ohio 355; 22 Cyc. 664; Ralston v. Lahee, 8 Iowa 17, 74 Am. Dec. 291; Melton v. Brown, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 882, 47 S.W. 764; Daingerfield v. Smith, 83 Va. 81, 1 S.E. 599; Waterman v. Lawrence, 19 Cal. 210, 79 Am. Dec. 212; Eidam v. Finnegan, 48 Minn. 53, 16 L.R.A. 507, 50 N.W. 933; Rankin v. Schofield, 70 Ark. 83, 66 S.W. 197; 22 Cyc. 698, 699; Blanton v. Rose, 70 Ark. 415, 68 S.W. 674; Washabaugh v. Hall, 4 S.D. 168, 56 N.W. 82; Watts v. Waddle, 6 Pet. 399, 8 L.Ed. 441; Adams v. Hartzell, 18 N.D. 221, 119 N.W. 637; Murphy v. Plankinton Bank, 13 S.D. 501, 83 N.W. 575; Probate Code (S. D.) § 219, (F. 1298); Rome Land Co. v. Eastman, 80 Ga. 683, 6 S.E. 586; Higginbotham v. Thomas, 9 Kan. 328; Black Hills Nat. Bank. v. Kellogg, 4 S.D. 312, 56 N.W. 1071; Williams v. Schembri, 44 Minn. 250, 46 N.W. 403; 36 Cyc. 638; 44 Cent. Dig. cols. 1688-1696.
Oral arrangements cannot be permitted to contradict written instruments as to the transfer of land. Fitzgerald v. Burke, 14 Colo. 559, 23 P. 993; Bradley v. Harter, 156 Ind. 499, 60 N.E. 139; Ft. Scott Coal & Min. Co. v. Sweeney, 15 Kan. 244, 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 166; 11 Cent. Dig. col. 2018; Johnson v. Pugh, 110 Wis. 167, 85 N.W. 641; Merchants' State Bank v. Ruettell, 12 N.D. 519, 97 N.W. 853; First Nat. Bank v. Prior, 10 N.D. 146, 86 N.W. 362; Page, Contr. § 1350; Cughan v. Larson, 13 N.D. 379, 100 N.W. 1088; Foster v. Furlong, 8 N.D. 282, 78 N.W. 986; Mettel v. Gales, 12 S.D. 632, 82 N.W. 181.
In specific performance cases, where money compensation is awarded in lieu of deficiency of the land to be conveyed, it must be fixed at the actual value of the land which ought to be conveyed. Rev. Code, §§ 6610 and 6611; 6 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 831-837.
Cash can only be substituted for land, in such cases, where the other party is willing to accept it. 6 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. § 833; 2 Warvelle, Vendors, § 749; Knudtson v. Robinson, 18 N.D. 12, 118 N.W. 1051.
The practical construction of a contract, placed upon it by the parties to it, will control. 9 Cyc....
To continue reading
Request your trial