Kileen v. Kennedy

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COLLINS, J.
• Citation: Kileen v. Kennedy, 90 Minn. 414, 97 N.W. 126 (Minn. 1903)
• Decision Date: 06 November 1903
• Docket Number: 13,690 - (79)
• Parties: THOMAS KILEEN v. ANDREW E. KENNEDY and Another

97 N.W. 126

90 Minn. 414

THOMAS KILEEN v. ANDREW E. KENNEDY and Another

Nos. 13,690 - (79)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 6, 1903

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for St Louis county, Dibell, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Acceptance of Offer.

No contract is complete without the mutual assent of the parties thereto, and an offer to sell property imposes no obligation until it is accepted according to the terms of the offer. A proposal to accept, or an acceptance upon terms varying from those offered, is a rejection of the offer, and puts an end to the negotiations, unless the party who made the original offer renews it, or properly assents to the modification suggested.

Sale of Timber -- Statute of Frauds.

An agreement for the purchase of standing timber is a contract for an interest in lands, is within the statute of frauds and must be in writing.

Francis W. Sullivan, for appellant.

Richardson & Day and Mead & Hoar, for respondents.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

This was an action to compel specific performance of a contract to convey standing timber upon lands owned by defendants, and the court below, upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, ordered judgment in their favor.

The law which governs this case is settled beyond controversy in this court, as it has been in many others. We quote: "To entitle a party to the specific performance of an alleged contract to convey real property, the contract must be clearly proved, and its terms should be so specific and distinct as to leave no reasonable doubt of their meaning." And further: "To satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds, an offer or proposal in writing to sell lands must be accepted in writing. A mere parol acceptance of such offer or proposal is insufficient. Such acceptance must be unqualified, so that there is a 'clear accession on both sides to one and the same set of terms.'" Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 (72); Hamlin v. Wistar, 31 Minn. 418, 18 N.W. 145; Jackson v. Badger, 35 Minn. 52, 26 N.W. 908.

Again it has been said that: "An offer to sell does not become a contract unless unconditionally accepted upon the exact terms of the offer. The acceptance must be unqualified, without the suggestion of any new terms." Ames & Frost Co. v. Smith, 65 Minn. 304, 306, 67 N.W. 999. This doctrine is very completely stated as follows: "As no contract is complete without the mutual assent of the parties, an offer to sell imposes no obligation until it is accepted according to its terms. So long as the offer has been neither accepted...