Hays v. Hug
| Decision Date | 23 March 1966 |
| Citation | 243 Or. 175,412 P.2d 373 |
| Parties | Omar H. HAYS and Anna Hays, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Davy HUG and Ruth F. Hug, husband and wife, and James Maasdam and Mrs. James Maasdam, husband and wife, Appellants. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
William R. Kirby, Enterprise, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
Lorin M. Ricker, Enterprise, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Before McALLISTER, C.J., and PERRY, SLOAN, GOODWIN, DENECKE, LUSK and SCHWAB, JJ.
This is a suit to foreclose a land sale contract in which defendants appeal from a decree of strict foreclosure.
In January, 1960 the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendants agreed to purchase a parcel of real property in Wallowa County, for $26,000, payable part down and the balance in installments. The contract required defendants to pay all real property taxes before they became past due. By November 1, 1964 the defendants had paid $14,000 on the purchase price, but had failed to pay the 1963--64 taxes which were then past due. The defendants failed to pay a $1,000 installment due on November 1, 1964, and other amounts then due for interest and taxes. Mr. Hug told Mr. Hays that he was unable to pay the amounts due, and asked for a 30-day extension. Hays granted an extension only to November 3, and when payment was not made, Hays wrote the defendants declaring the entire balance of the purchase price immediately due and payable, and demanded that it be paid by November 10. The amount due on November 1, was tendered to plaintiffs about November 17, but the tender was refused and this suit for strict foreclosure followed. The trial court decreed foreclosure and gave defendants nine months in which to pay the full amount due.
There is no dispute about the amount due on November 1, 1964 and its non-payment. The contract contained a standard provision making time of payment of the essence, and if that provision is applicable defendants were in default when the plaintiffs declared the entire balance immediately due and payable. Defendants contend, however, that the time of essence provision was modified by a provision contained in the escrow instructions signed by the parties when they deposited a copy of the contract and a deed to the property in escrow with a bank. The escrow was created in compliance with the contract. The escrow instructions to the bank contained the following provision:
'(1) You (the bank) are authorized to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnett v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...that multiple documents should be construed as a single contract: (1) the documents are made by the same parties, Hays v. Hug, 243 Or. 175, 177, 412 P.2d 373 (1966); (2) the documents are executed at or about the same time, id.; and (3) the documents are part of the same transaction, id.;Fi......
-
Snow Mountain Pine, Ltd. v. Tecton Laminates Corp.
...address interrelated subjects, we are bound to construe them together as one contract to discern the parties' intent. Hays v. Hug, 243 Or. 175, 177, 412 P.2d 373 (1966); Waxwing Cedar Products v. C & W Lumber, 44 Or.App. 167, 170, 605 P.2d 719 "When a written instrument refers in specific t......
-
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago M. St. P. & P. R. Co.
...Forest Products Corp. v. Welsh Panel Co., 248 F.Supp. 903 (D.Or.1965); Meier v. Porter, 256 Or. 261, 472 P.2d 814 (1970); Hays v. Hug, 243 Or. 175, 412 P.2d 373 (1966); Norton v. Van Voorst, 191 Or. 577, 587, 231 P.2d 947 (1951); 4 S. Williston, Contracts § 628 (3d ed. 1961); 3 A. Corbin, C......
-
Kost v. First Nat. Bank of Greybull
...Thus, the Bank had to read the instructions in conjunction with the contract to determine its duties as escrow agent. Hays v. Hug, 243 Or. 175, 412 P.2d 373, 374 (1966); Estate of Reinhold v. Mansfield, 90 Ill.App.3d 224, 45 Ill.Dec. 564, 412 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (1980). The language in paragr......