Hawley v. Jelly

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Campbell, J.
• Citation: Hawley v. Jelly, 25 Mich. 94 (Mich. 1872)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1872
• Parties: Thomas D. Hawley v. Jane D. Jelly

25 Mich. 94

Thomas D. Hawley v. Jane D. Jelly

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 30, 1872

Heard April 23, 1872; April 24, 1872.

Appeal in Chancery from Wayne Circuit.

Court acted properly in dismissing the bill, and the decree affirmed, with costs.

John G Hawley and Charles A. Kent, for complainant.

D. B & H. M. Duffield and G. V. N. Lothrop, for defendant.

Campbell J. Christiancy, Ch. J., and Cooley, J., concurred. Graves J., did not sit in this case.

OPINION

Campbell, J.

Complainant sues for the specific performance of a contract which is alleged in the bill with considerable fullness, not by its terms as claimed to have been made, but according to what it is supposed was its legal intent. It is alleged as a contract in writing, executed and delivered by the said Jane D. Jelly to your orator, whereby she "contracted and agreed to and with your orator, to grant, bargain, sell and convey to your orator, the said premises and appurtenances, and to make out a good title thereto, valid and sufficient in law, and to execute, acknowledge, and deliver to your orator a good and sufficient deed of conveyance of the said premises and appurtenances, for the sum of ten thousand seven hundred dollars, to be paid by your orator in manner following, to wit: four thousand seven hundred on the execution of said deed, and six thousand in two years from the date thereof, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum; said last mentioned sum of six thousand dollars to be secured by mortgage on the said premises, to be executed to the said Jane D. Jelly by your orator." He then sets forth agreements in writing on his part to pay the first sum "on the execution of the said deed of conveyance, and on the making out of a title, valid and sufficient in law, by the said Jane D. Jelly to your orator," and to pay the balance "in two years from the date of the said deed of conveyance," with interest at ten per cent., and to execute such mortgage. This agreement, he avers, was made and accepted on the 21st of December, 1871, and he alleges that on the 23d of December he sent his agent, John G. Hawley, to defendant, "to inquire into the title to the said premises," and that his agent saw her and told her he had come to inquire into the title, "and to carry out the said contracts and agreements on the part of your orator." He then avers that she refused to carry out the contract, and said that complainant could not have the premises unless he would give eleven thousand dollars.

The contract relied upon under the evidence is deduced from three letters. The first letter written and received December 20th, is an inquiry whether defendant still wished to sell the property, and, if so, asking her lowest price and terms.

The second letter is her answer, written December 21st, and, as she testifies, mailed between nine and ten that morning, which is in the following terms:

"Detroit, Dec. 21, 1871.

"Mr. T. D. Hawley:

"Sir--I received your note of the 20th; I will sell for ten thousand seven hundred dollars, four thousand seven hundred down, the remaining six thousand in two years, at ten per cent. There is two hundred and fifty-nine feet and six inches on Jefferson avenue, running back on Van Dyke avenue eleven hundred feet and over. If sold immediately, I will take this and no less. I came near selling on Tuesday last, and presume the same party will make an effort to get the place yet. It wants two hundred of closing the bargain.

"Yours respectfully,

"Jane D. Jelly."

The third, dated December 22d, and which she testifies she received on the morning of Saturday, the 23d, was an acceptance of her offer and terms, and a statement of readiness to comply with the conditions.

On Saturday afternoon, about three o'clock, Mr. John G Hawley, a brother and agent of complainant, called on Mrs. Jelly and requested an abstract. She said she had one, but that she would not let complainant have the property for the price named; that she had had a better offer, or could do better; but if he came up that afternoon or evening, she would sell to him for eleven thousand dollars--that is, three hundred dollars more--but would not promise to do so after that. He made no reply or claim of any kind, and on leaving, with the abstract which she gave him, told defendant he would inform complainant she wanted three hundred dollars more to close the bargain. This is all that occurred at that or any other time between any of the parties, and on the succeeding Tuesday, the day after Christmas, she made a bargain with other parties, for twelve thousand dollars, and the same day, whether...