Hall v. Cotton

• Decision Date: 17 December 1915
• Citation: 180 S.W. 779,167 Ky. 464
• Parties: HALL ET UX. v. COTTON.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

180 S.W. 779

167 Ky. 464

HALL ET UX. v. COTTON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 17, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Woodford County.

Equitable action by C. C. Hall and wife against C. S. Cotton for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of lands. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

T. L Edelen, of Frankfort, and Field McLeod, of Versailles, for appellants.

Grant E. Lilly, of Richmond, for appellee.

TURNER J.

This is an equitable action by Hall and wife seeking to specifically enforce a written contract for the sale of land by them to C S. Cotton. The contract is as follows:

"Versailles, Ky. Feb. 3, 1914.

This contract, made this day between Mrs. C. C. Hall, C. C. Hall, of Woodford county, Ky. and C. S. Cotton, of Paintlick, Garrard county, Ky.: The said Hall and wife have this day sold their farm of fifty-three and thirteen-sixteenths acres for five thousand five hundred and fifty dollars, as follows: Five hundred dollars this day cash in hand paid, and thirty-five hundred dollars to be paid March 1, 1914, when the said Halls are to give possession and a general warranty deed; the balance, fifteen hundred and fifty dollars, to be in one and two year notes from March 1, 1914, with 6 per cent. interest from March 1, 1914, till paid, a lien to be retained on deferred payments. Tobacco sticks go with the farm; also the fodder left shall go with the farm. All loose lumber on farm go with it. C. S. Cotton to pay taxes fall of 1914.

Mrs. C. C. Hall.

C. C. Hall.

C. S. Cotton."

The only question necessary to be considered is whether this is an enforceable contract for the sale of lands under the statute of frauds and whether the description therein is sufficient to satisfy that statute. The description in the writing involved here is unlike and essentially different from any description in similar contracts which has been upheld by this court. It will be observed that it does not specify the county or state in which the land is situated; it does not refer to it as the land conveyed to him by "so and so"; it does not refer to it as the farm known as the "Jones" or "Smith" farm; it does not state that it lies on any named water course; it does not say that it is near any town or village, or any well-known object; it merely says "their farm" of 53 13/16, acres.

This court has been more or less liberal in upholding vague and indefinite descriptions embraced in contracts for the sale of lands, and has shown an inclination to relax, in a measure, the older and more vigorous interpretation given to the statute of frauds in that respect; but a careful examination of the authorities will disclose that in no case has it enforced specifically any contract with such fatally defective description as the one here sought to be enforced. For instance, in Hyden v. Perkins, 119 Ky. 190, 83 S.W. 128, it held sufficient a contract embracing a description of a "farm of about twenty acres known as the Vaught farm"; the court holding that parol evidence was competent to show what land was known by that name. In the case of Tyler v. Onzts, 93 Ky. 331, 20 S.W. 256, a description was upheld of "lot No. 4, block 9, N. E., in Middlesboro, Kentucky." In the case of Henderson v. Perkins, 94 Ky. 207, 21 S.W. 1035, the contract designated the vendor as a resident of Rocky Hill station, Ky. and described the property as "my home place and the store house," and that was held sufficient. In the case of Campbell v. Preece, 133 Ky. 572, 118 S.W. 373, the description was, "The lands that said Campbell sold to said Preece, situated on the Shanty branch of the Left fork of Peter creek, Pike county, Kentucky," and this description, together with one contained in another writing supplementing it, were held to be sufficient. In Bates v. Harris, 144 Ky. 399, 138 S.W. 276, 36 L.R.A. (N. S.) 154, a description of "her Muddy Creek farm, embracing 113 acres," the writing showing that both parties were residents of Madison county, was upheld. In the case of Posey v. Kimsey, 146 Ky. 205, 142 S.W. 703, a writing describing the land as "my farm known as the John Baskett home farm" was held to be sufficient to satisfy the statute. In the case of Price v. Hays, 144 Ky. 535, 139 S.W. 810, the description was "about 150 acres of land near Otter Creek station, one mile N. of Rineyville, Hardin county, Kentucky, on I. C. R. R." The court held that that description was insufficient and did not comply with the demands of the statute, saying:

"The object of the statutes of frauds and perjuries is to prevent

...