Henry v. Hutchins

• Decision Date: 23 July 1920
• Docket Number: No. 21724.,21724.
• Citation: 146 Minn. 381,178 N.W. 807
• Parties: HENRY v. HUTCHINS et al. HUTCHINS v. HENRY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

146 Minn. 381

178 N.W. 807

HENRY

v.HUTCHINS et al.

HUTCHINS

v.HENRY.

No. 21724.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 23, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Kittson County; Andrew Grindeland, Judge.

Two actions by John D. Henry against William W. Hutchins and others, and by William W. Hutchins against John D. Henry, in conversion and for ejectment.Judgment for defendants in the first action, and for plaintiff on a directed verdict in the second action.A new trial in each was denied, and in each case Henry appeals.Affirmed in both actions.

Syllabus by the Court

A deposit in escrow of title deeds or other documents, by agreement of title deeds or other delivered by the custodian to the person ultimately entitled to them only after performance of the conditions of the escrow, is not invalid because the person agreed upon as custodian happens to be the agent of one of them.Van Valkenburg v. Allen, 111 Minn. 333, 126 N. W. 1092,137 Am. St. Rep. 561, distinguished.

A delivery before performance of the conditions of the escrow, unless performance be waived, is ineffective and confers no rights on the person receiving them.

The question of what constitutes a reasonable time for the performance of a contract, where no specific time is agreed upon, is ordinarily one of fact to be determined by the jury; but on the facts stated in the opinion it is held that there was no error in an instruction to the jury that a stated time was unreasonable as a matter of law.

To justify a court in depriving a party of the benefits of express contract stipulations on the ground of waiver, an intention to waive them should clearly be made to appear or arise by necessary implication from the facts disclosed.

The evidence is held not to show a waiver within the rule, and that there was no error in the refusal of the court to submit the question to the jury.

The evidence is held to sustain the verdict in the first above-entitled action, and that a directed verdict in the second was not error since both actions involved the same issues, between the same parties, and were submitted to the same court upon substantially the same evidence.

The title of plaintiff in an ejectment suit may be adjudged to be subject to certain specific incumbrances which have been canceled or discharged, such discharge or cancellation being properly vacated and the lien of the incumbrances restored of recored by the same judgment.

The record presents no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence.R. V. Blethen, of Hallock, and F. H. Peterson, of Moorhead, for appellant.

John Jenswold and John D. Jenswold, both of Duluth, for respondents.

BROWN, C. J.

These two actions involve substantially the same questions and, though tried separately in the court below, were submitted together in this court.The first-entitled action is one in conversion for the value of certain grain products, claimed to be the property of plaintiff; while the second action is in ejectment to recover the possession of the land on which the crops alleged to have been converted were reised.The question of the ownership and the right of possession of the land is the controlling issue in each action.In the first the issue was submitted to a jury and a verdict returned in favor of defendantWilliam W. Hutchins; and in the second a verdict was directed for Hutchins by the court at the conclusion of the trial.There was a motion for judgment or a new trial in each which was denied.Henry, plaintiff in one of the actions and defendant in the other, and the moving party, appealed.

Hutchins was the owner of a half section of land near the Canadian border, in Kittson county, this state.He was a farmer and occupied the land in his farming operations.The land was heavily incumbered and Hutchins was otherwise considerably in debt.Crops had been poor prior to and including the year 1916, and his financial condition was growing worse; he was unable to meet his obligations as they became due, even the interest on the mortgage debts.In the fall of 1916he approached one Bennett, cashier of a bank at St. Vincent, a nearby village, with an offer to sell the farm for $30 per acre, hoping thus to free himself from debts and be enabled to make a new start in some other locality.No definite arrangements for a sale were made at that time, though Bennett then loaned to Hutchins the sum of $1,300, with which to pay off pressing claims, taking a chattel mortgage upon certain personal property as security.On March 1, 1917, at Bennett's suggestion Hutchins listed the land with Bennett for sale at $30 per acre.Hutchins and confidence in Bennett, and previous transactions with him had been satisfactory.Some days after so listing the land for sale, Bennett informed Hutchins that he had a prospective purchaser and requested that he appear at the Bennett bank with his wife on April 2d, when negotiations could be completed and a sale closed if terms were agreed upon.At the appointed time all parties appeared at the bank.The prospective purchaser was a man named Harry S. Stevens, a resident of Minneapolis, and he was represented by defendant Henry.The terms and conditions of sale were discussed, at the conclusion of which, without going into details, a deed conveying the land to Stevens was prepared by Bennett and duly executed and acknowledged by Hutchins and wife, the expressed consideration being the equivalent of $30 per acre for the land; and on the theory that Stevens would confirm the transaction a lease of the land, or cropping contract, for the ensuing farming season was also prepared, therein describing Hutchins as the first party, and Stevens, by one T. M. George, his agent, as the second party, and signed by Hutchins in his own behalf and by Henry for Stevens and George.By this contract Hutchins agreed to farm the land for the ensuing season, with a division of the crops raised as compensation of each party; Hutchins to furnish the seed and do the work and have three-fourths and Stevens one-fourth of all crops raised.Hutchins also executed at the same time a mortgage upon the land in the sum of $1,300 to take the place of the chattel mortgage previously given to the Bennett bank.None of the documents so executed were delivered at the time; they were all left with Bennett by the mutual understanding and agreement of the parties for later delivery.Of this the record presents no fair dispute, though there is a dispute as to the reasons therefor.Hutchins claims, and he so testified, that a delivery of the documents to Stevens was not to be made by Bennett, the custodian, until Stevens paid all the outstanding mortgages against the land, and evidence thereof in the form of the canceled obligations with satisfactions were delivered to Hutchins, all of which by the agreement of his agent, Henry, Stevens assumed and agreed to pay.Of this agreement to pay the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt; Henry so testified at folio 201 of the record, though in other parts of his testimony he appears a little uncertain on the point.But the evidence pointed out is clear and specific to the effect stated.The chattel mortgage was to be satisfied; thus releasing the horses, cattle, and farm machinery.It was Henry's claim that the purpose of leaving the papers with Bennett was the examination of the abstract of title to the land when it came in.It was also claimed by Hutchins that the conditions of the escrow were all to be complied with and performed within two weeks from the date of the transaction, April 2d, and if not performed within that time that there should be no delivering of the papers at all-neither the deed, the cropping contract, nor the $1,300 mortgage to the Bennett bank.

The evidence makes it clear that it was not known at the time whether Stevens would confirm the transaction, or as expressed by some of the witnesses, ‘whether he would take the land,’ but hopes were entertained that he would do so.Early in May following, he was informed of the matter and made a trip to the land from his home in Minneapolis for the purpose of an examination, and to determine whether he would ‘take the land.’After looking the farm over, he concluded that he did not want it, and so advised Henry.Henry promptly responded that he would take the matter off his hands and carry it through.This was satisfactory to Stevens, and soon thereafter he executed a quitclaim deed of the land to Henry, and also assigned to him the cropping contract.Hutchins was not present and was not consulted in the matter, and did not know that Stevens had droppeed out until some time in May or June.Hutchins did not know of Henry's interest in the matter until July, up to which time he supposed that George had taken the place of Stevens.On May 11, 1917, Henry mailed to Bennett a check for $485.05, which he claimed represented the balance due Hutchins after deducting all incumbrances against the land from the purchase price.Thereupon Bennett delivered the deed and cropping...