James v. Darby
Decision Date | 13 February 1900 |
Docket Number | 1,296,1,297 |
Citation | 100 F. 224 |
Parties | JAMES et al. v. DARBY. DARBY v. JAMES et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
The defendant in error, Dr. W. J. Darby, while in Coahoma county Miss., on other business, ascertained that the plaintiffs in error, Dr. R. R. James and R. P. McGregor, who were defendants in the court below, owned a certain tract of land in that county containing 520 acres, known as the 'Crudup Tract,' and that it was for sale. He thereupon went to Cottonplant, Ark., where the plaintiffs in error resided, to negotiate the purchase of the land. The negotiations resulted in the plaintiffs in error executing and delivering to him an option to purchase the land, in the following words:
'We hereby agree to give Rev. W. J. Darby thirty days' option on a certain 520 acres of land we own in Mississippi. Exception to this, on condition we have a liberal and good offer for the land, we agree to telegraph said Rev. W. J. Darby, and give him one week after telegram. Option price $2,500, one-third cash, balance one and two years, eight per cent, interest.
'November 2nd, 1896.
R. R James R. P. McGregor.'
After getting the option Dr. Darby returned to Evansville, Ind where he resided. Before leaving, it was arranged that subsequent correspondence should be had with Dr. James. (This arrangement will be more particularly referred to later.) Subsequently Dr. Darby wrote Dr. James the following:
'Dr. R. R. James, Cottonplant, Arkansas-- Dear Sir: Since arriving home, I have arranged to make another trip to Mississippi, and some friends will go with me. I hope our visit may result satisfactorily, and that we may be able to arrange trade. Of course, I cannot tell you as to myself until I make a thorough investigation of your land, and then my friends will have to determine whether they care to invest. Our visit there will be about the 23rd, or 24th, after which date I will write you as promptly as possible what we will do.
'Very truly yours,
W. J. Darby.'
Dr. James did not answer this letter. Subsequently Dr. Darby wrote to Dr. James the following letter:
W. J. Darby.'
This letter Dr. James answered, as follows:
'Cottonplant, Arkansas, November 27, 1896.
'Rev. W. J. Darby, Forth Worth, Texas-- Dear Sir: Yours of the 25th to hand, stating you would take the land, if title was all right, for the sum of $2,500, one-third cash, balance one and two years, eight per cent, interest from date. I think there will be no trouble about the title. McGregor investigated the title before he brought it, and says the title is all right. I will write Maynard & Fitzgerald, of Friarpoint, to-day, to have abstract made of title. We are willing to give you a warranty title. Inclosed find letter from your friend J. L. Cooper, making claim of $100 for his assistance in making sale of the land. You will doubtless remember I spoke to you about having told him to sell the land for $2,600, taking $100 for his trouble. You thought if you bought it he would not want anything, and you said you would make it all right with him. I have never learned to deal but one way, and that is 'straight.' Therefore I inclose his letter, that you may see his claims.
'Yours, very truly,
R. R. James.'
Subsequently Dr. Darby wrote the following letter:
'Nortonville, Kentucky, December 22, 1896.
W. J. Darby.'
Dr. James responded to the above letter by telegram, which Dr. Darby received on the 24th of December. The telegram is in these words:
'Land sold, deed made, money paid. Will write you.
R. R. James.'
On the same day Dr. James wrote Dr. Darby as follows:
'Cottonplant, Arkansas, December 27, 1986.
option, and forty-five days elapsed before we sold. Had we of known for certain you would have taken it, we would have sold it to you. You remember you told us when here not to miss a certain sale if le had such an opportunity. Had I of known where you were, I would have wired you. Mr. Wildberger was buying for his mother, who is visiting him from Kentucky. If we have disappointed you, we are very sorry, but as I told you when you were here, we were anxious to sell the land.
'Yours, very truly,
R. R. James.'
When Dr. Darby was informed that James and McGregor had sold the land, he instituted this suit for a breach of contract to sell, and for cause of action alleges: 'The defendants answer, and deny that on or about November 27th they agreed in writing to sell plaintiff, for the sum of $2,500, to be paid one-third cash, balance in one and two years, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum, the land mentioned in the complainant, and deny that they refused to perform their part of the contract, or that plaintiff offered to perform his part of it, and say that it is not true that he has been ready and willing to do so; and they also deny any damages by reason of any breach of contract on their part. They then say that on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Babcock v. Rieger
... ... at that time to make such election, did not comply with the ... provisions of the lease and was ineffective. James v ... Darby, 100 F. 224; Couch v. McCoy, 138 F. 696; ... Scott v. Davis, 141 Mo. 213. (5) Lessor directed and ... authorized the lessee to ... ...
-
Kritz v. Moon
...There must be no new terms imposed, and no departure from those offered.” Crancer v. Lareau (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 117;James v. Darby (C. C. A.) 100 F. 224;Whitaker-Glessner Co. v. Clark, 98 W. Va. 19, 126 S. E. 340;Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 361, 31 N. W. 690. [10][11] The option in que......
-
Kritz v. Moon
...unconditional. There must be no new terms imposed, and no departure from those offered." Crancer v. Lareau (1924), 1 F.2d 117; James v. Darby (1900), 100 F. 224; Whitaker-Glessner Co. v. Clark (1924), W.Va. 19, 126 S.E. 340; Langellier v. Schaefer (1887), 36 Minn. 361, 31 N.W. 690. The opti......
-
Jones v. Byrne
...Hennessy v. Woolworth, 128 U.S. 438, 9 Sup.Ct. 109, 32 L.Ed. 500; Couch v. McCoy (C.C.) 138 F. 702, and cases there cited; James v. Darby, 100 F. 224, 40 C.C.A. 341, and cases there Another reason why specific performance will not be granted is that: 'Where the contract sought to be enforce......