Heacock v. Kniesley
| Citation | 224 P. 184,101 Okla. 135,1924 OK 265 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 12064. |
| Parties | HEACOCK v. KNIESLEY ET AL. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
A complete contract binding under the statute of frauds may be entered into by letters, telegrams, or other writings between the parties, relative to the subject-matter of the contract, and so connected with each other that they may be fairly said to constitute one paper relating to the contract but in order to be sufficient the letters, telegrams, and writings relied upon must, by reference to each other disclose every material part of a valid contract, and must be signed by the party sought to be charged, must set out the parties, the subject-matter, the price, the description of the property, terms, and conditions, and leave nothing to rest in parol.
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; Cham Jones, Judge.
Action by O. E. Heacock against Pete Kniesley and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Green & Pruet, of Waurika, for plaintiff in error.
J. H Harper, of Waurika, for defendants in error.
This action was brought by O. E. Heacock as plaintiff, against Pete Kniesley as defendant, seeking the specific performance of a contract for the sale of lots 23 and 24 in block 38 in the town of Waurika. Afterwards a supplemental petition was filed, making Harley Ivy and F. P. Duncan defendants.
The plaintiff bases his right of recovery upon a letter written by him to Kniesley, in which he offered to pay the sum of $175 for the property, and a telegram from Kniesley accepting such offer.
The defendant Kniesley did not appear in the cause. The defendants Ivy and Duncan answered, stating that on the 27th day of January, 1920, Kniesley conveyed to Ivy the real estate involved for a consideration of $200; that Ivy paid the consideration therefor, and became the purchaser of said property in good faith, without notice of any title or claim of the plaintiff therein; that, just prior to the time Ivy entered into a contract to purchase the lots from Kniesley, the plaintiff stated to him that he had an opportunity to purchase the lots, but that he did not want them because the title thereto was defective; that Ivy, relying on the statement that he did not want the lots, purchased the same, and paid the consideration therefor; that afterwards he sold and conveyed the lots to the defendant Duncan; that Duncan purchased the interest of Ivy in good faith, for a valuable consideration, and was the owner thereof, and prayed that the title thereto be quieted in Duncan. A trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants Ivy and Duncan, from which the plaintiff has appealed.
The only inquiry presented which it is necessary to consider is whether or not the evidence shows an enforceable contract between Heacock and Kniesley. Heacock testified that he had been corresponding with Kniesley in regard to the lots in question for two or three years, and that on or about January 1, 1920, he wrote Kniesley, offering him $175 therefor, and inclosed a deed for Kniesley's signature in which the lots were described, and he was named as grantee. This letter had been lost, and neither it nor a copy thereof could be produced, but Heacock testified to the contents thereof as follows:
The telegram from Kniesley to Heacock reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial