Grout v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 17 November 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,518 - (52) |
| Citation | 104 N.W. 966,96 Minn. 230 |
| Parties | ALVIRNA GROUT v. DARWIN A. STEWART |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Winona county, Snow, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and findings in favor of plaintiff. Affirmed.
Specific Performance.
An oral agreement to receive title to land by an absolute conveyance from the owner, and to hold the same as security for money advanced to a purchaser of the land for the purpose of making payments under his contract of purchase, is not contrary to the statute of frauds, and may be specifically enforced against the grantee, notwithstanding the purchaser is in possession of the premises and his contract of purchase is still in force as against the owner. Certain rulings reviewed, and found to contain no error.
Webber & Lees, for appellant.
Brown Abbott & Somsen, for respondent.
Action for the specific enforcement of an oral contract to hold a conveyance of real estate as security for money loaned.
The complaint sets forth the following facts: Mrs. Thiers was the owner of one hundred sixty acres of land, and October 4, 1898, her husband joining, executed a contract for a deed to Spaulding. October 6, 1898, Spaulding and wife made a contract for deed of fifty acres of this land to the mother and the wife of the plaintiff, and received from plaintiff $800, which amount Spaulding paid to Thiers to apply on his contract. In February, 1902, Spaulding defaulted on his contract with Thiers, and thereupon Thiers entered into an agreement with plaintiff to the effect that, in case Spaulding should fail to perform his contract and it should be declared forfeited, then plaintiff should perform the conditions of the Spaulding contract and receive the deed to the one hundred sixty acres of land. The contract running from Thiers to Spaulding was forfeited and declared void by Thiers, and thereupon Thiers agreed with plaintiff that he might pay the amount of the default and receive a deed to the premises. Defendant, having been informed of all these facts, agreed to loan plaintiff the sum of $4,850 to pay up the amount due on the Spaulding contract, and it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant that Thiers should execute a deed of the premises to defendant, the premises to be held by defendant as security for the land, and that he should execute a contract for a deed of the premises to plaintiff upon the same terms as the original contract from Thiers to Spaulding, except a modification in the amount of interest, the time of its payment, and the principal to be paid on or before ten years from date. Thiers assented to this agreement, and executed and delivered the deed to defendant, who paid, in consideration thereof, $4,620.47, which amount Thiers accepted in full payment of the land under his agreement with plaintiff. Defendant, though requested, refused to make the contract, and claims to be the absolute owner of the premises.
At the first trial the court submitted two questions to the jury:
1. Did the plaintiff, Alvirna Grout, and defendant, Stewart, enter into an oral agreement whereby it was agreed that defendant, Stewart, should loan plaintiff, Grout, on the terms stated in the complaint, the amount of money due upon the contract for a deed executed by Elizabeth Thiers and Louis M. Thiers to Tyler Spaulding?
To which the jury answered, "Yes."
2. If the first question be answered Yes, did the plaintiff, Grout, enter into an agreement with the defendant, Stewart, whereby it was agreed that the said Elizabeth Thiers and Louis M. Thiers should deed the premises described in the complaint to defendant, Stewart, as security for said loan, and that said Stewart, should execute a contract for a deed of said premises on the terms and conditions stated in the complaint to the plaintiff, Grout?
To which the jury answered, "Yes."
The trial court submitted to the jury the question, requiring them to find whether or not the deed executed and delivered by Elizabeth Thiers and her husband to defendant was executed and delivered pursuant to the agreement. To this question the jury answered, "No." The answer to the third question was set aside, and a new trial ordered upon that question alone, and a similar question was formulated, submitted, and tried at the next general term, and was answered "Yes" by the jury.
The court adopted the answers of the jury and found as true all of the facts alleged in the complaint. The amount, however as found by the court, which Stewart paid to Thiers in consideration of the deed, was $4,620.47, instead of the sum originally agreed on in the contract between Thiers and Spaulding. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial