Grant v. Munch

• Decision Date: 30 June 1893
• Citation: 54 Minn. 111,55 N.W. 902
• Parties: GRANT v MUNCH ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

54 Minn. 111

55 N.W. 902

GRANTvMUNCH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 30, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The intention of the parties to a contract for the sale and conveyance of real property, clearly and unequivocally expressed, that time is of the essence of the agreement, must govern in equity as well as at law.

2. In such a contract it was stipulated that the agreement should be void, at the election of the vendors, in case the vendee defaulted in the payment of a part of the purchase price according to the conditions of his promissory note of even date therewith. This note was made payable at a certain bank, was there for collection when due, and was not paid. The vendors gave immediate notice that they had elected to declare the contract void, and with this notice returned the note. Held, that it was not necessary for the vendors to prepare, and have at the bank, in readiness for delivery when the note matured, a deed of conveyance of the premises, nor was it incumbent upon them to return that part of the purchase price already paid in order to exercise their right to declare the contract void.

Appeal from district court, Pine county; Crosby, Judge.

Action for the specific performance of a land contract by William Grant, Jr., against Adolph Munch and others. Defendants had judgment, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. F. Fitzpatrick, for appellant.

J. M. Gilman and Robertson Howard, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

This was an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale and conveyance of real estate. At the time of the sale one-fourth of the purchase price was paid by the vendee, and the balance was to be paid in six months, according to the conditions of the vendee's promissory note of even date. By the terms of the contract, prompt performance on his part was required of the vendee; and it was expressly provided that if he should make default in his payment the contract should be void, at the election of the vendor, “time being of the essence of this agreement.” The note was made payable at a certain bank in the city of St. Paul, and was there for collection on the day it matured,-August 17, 1891; but the maker did not have, nor did any other person have, funds at the bank with which to pay it, and it was not paid. On August 18th-the day after that on which the note matured-the vendors elected to declare, and by written notice to the vendee did declare, the contract void, at the same time returning his note, Having been notified by the bank on August 17th that it held the note for collection, the vendee sent a draft for the full amount due. It does not appear from the findings when the...