James v. Darby

Decision Date13 February 1900
Docket Number1,296,1,297
Citation100 F. 224
PartiesJAMES et al. v. DARBY. DARBY v. JAMES et al.
CourtU.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:

'Vicksburg, Mississippi, Nov. 25, 1896.
'Dr. R. R. James, Cottonplant, Arkansas-- Dear Sir; If details are satisfactorily arranged, I have decided to accept your proposition regarding Crudup tract of land in Coahoma county, namely, $2,500 for 520 acres, payable one-third cash, and the remainder in one and two years, with interest at eight per cent. Of course, the first consideration is an abstract of title that my representative at Clarksdale would pronounce perfect. I take for granted, of course, you can furnish this, and that there will be no 'hitch' on this question. Having no occasion to question this, I failed to speak to you about it. A rumor has since come to me that there is possibly a flaw in your title; there being some minors heirs concerned, who may have some claim on a part of it. I attach no significance to this, but as I want to proceed with some plans, on the basis that the trade will be closed, I wish you would write me at once on this point. If you say you know the title to be perfect, I will proceed with my plans, and the transfer can be made when arrangements are completed. I am out for a month's trip in Louisiana and Texas. Please address me at Fort Worth, texas, care Rev. A. B. Buchanan.

'Very truly yours,

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.

'Dr. R. R. James: I have a letter from Mississippi to-day which indicates that my plans for pushing work as quickly as transfer is made are checked, and am at a point where only a short delay and a little uncertainty as to closing

trade will undermine confidence and cost me heavily, preventing my accomplishing anything for a whole year, and make 1898 of but little profit. Two things have got in my way: A letter you wrote some one there under date of December 14, throwing doubt over the proposed trade between us, and naming terms to another. I assume you simply replied to some one's inquiry, saying that the trade was not closed between us yet, that the deed had not been executed and no money paid, and that in case the trade was not consummated your terms would be so and so. That is all right, but it starts rumors that block my way; and I will be greatly obliged if you will write this party again, indicating your confident expectation that the trade will be consummated as proposed, and ask him to so state to any persons with whom he has communicated on the subject. This is a small matter, but it may mean much to me. As I have said, if you can make a good deed, I will conform to the terms. If you cannot make a good deed, there is no use of proposing to sell to anybody else. What you wrote me in Texas about the deed is satisfactory, and I have no doubt the abstract will be all right. Confident of this I am ordering lumber, arranging for building, and have cleared land, etc. If you have received information from your attorneys throwing any doubt whatever on the title, please wire me to that effect, on receipt of this, at Evansville, Indiana, and I can stop matters before they go far enough to do me any damage. Unless I countermand orders by the 25th, contracts will be made that will be burdensome in case the transfer is interfered with on the score of defective title. As to our trade, I do not consider anything in the way except the chance as to title. If the payment of money is a question in your mind as to transfer, I will at once arrange for the cash payment by depositing in a bank in your town in your favor on notice that transfer is complete, or will make any other arrangement as to same in the manner indicated. Certainty being necessary, please hurry up your abstract men. An old rumor as to bad title has also got in my way.

'Very truly, yours,

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.

'Rev. W. J. Darby, Evansville, Indiana-- Dear Sir: More than a week ago we received from R. H. Wildberger a deed, written out, and a draft on the bank inclosed. We were to sign deed and keep the check. We have been trying to sell the land for a number of years, and you were not altogether certain whether or not your people would take it. This trade was a certainty, and we signed the deed. We had given you thirty days' 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: 'That on or about November 27, 1986, the defendants agreed in writing with the plaintiff to sell him, for the sum of $2,500, to be paid one-third cash, balance in one and two years, bearing interest at 8 per cent., a plantation in Coahoma county Mississippi, described as follows: (Description follows.) That shortly thereafter defendants refused to perform their part of the contract, the plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief that defendants have, since the execution of the contract above mentioned, sold and transferred said land to some third person. That plaintiff offered to perform his part of the contract, and has ever been ready and willing to do so. That he has been damaged by defendants' breach of contract in the sum of four thousand dollars, for which amount he prays judgment. ' 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
14 cases
  • Babcock v. Rieger
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1933
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 3, 1928
    ...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
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 3, 1928
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • November 12, 1906
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT