King v. Wood

• Decision Date: 31 May 1842
• Citation: 7 Mo. 389
• Parties: KING, ADM'R OF KING, ET AL. v. WOOD.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

7 Mo. 389

KING, ADM'R OF KING, ET AL.

v.WOOD.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1842.

APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

GEYER, SKINKERS & KING, for Appellant.

SPALDING, for Appellee.

TOMPKINS, J.

William B. King, in his life-time, filed his bill in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, sitting as a court of chancery, praying that James Wood be decreed to perform a contract, which the complainant alleged had been entered into by Wood with said complainant. After the filing of the bill the complainant died, and the suit proceeded in the name of William W. King and others, heirs and legal representatives of the complainant. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and to reverse its decree this appeal is prosecuted.

It is stated in the bill that James Wood, of Pittsburg, in Pennsylvania, being siezed in fee of a certain real estate in the city and county of St. Louis, “called the Union Hotel property, consisting of two lots or parcels of ground, with buildings or improvements thereon, one of which lots contains sixty-nine feet on Main street, in said city, by one hundred and fifty feet in depth, more or less, bounded east by Main street; south, by Prune street; west, by an alley twenty feet wide, which separates the same from the lot next described; north, by a line parallel to said Prune street, and distant therefrom sixty-nine feet; on which lot there are large brick buildings, now occupied as the Union Hotel. The other lot fronting fifty feet on Second street, and running eastwardly one hundred and fifty feet, by that width, more or less, bounded east by the above mentioned alley; south, by Prune street; west, by Second street; north, by a line parallel to Prune street, and distant therefrom fifty feet; the said two lots being the same property conveyed by Scott and Rule to the said Wood in the year 1831. And that said Wood being desirous to sell the said lots and premises, in the month of November, in the year 1835, entered into a correspondence and negotiation with the complainant touching the absolute sale and conveyance of said property to said complainant; and that on the third day of December, in that year, said Wood proposed in writing, signed by himself, to sell to the complainant the above described lots and premises, or all that piece of property known by the name and description of the Union Hotel, for thirty thousand dollars; of which five thousand dollars was to be paid on the first day of April then next, at which time said Wood was to make the conveyance; and the remaining twenty-five thousend in six annual installments, &c. And the complainant was required to inform Wood before the first day of February then next, whether he would accede to the said proposition. But the complainant did give Wood notice accordingly of his acceptance of the proposition, and therefore it was agreed between the complainant and Wood, that Wood should convey said property on the terms above mentioned; and that Wood should be in the city of St. Louis on the first day of April then next, at which time each party should perform his part of the contract.”

The statement of the case is concluded by averring the complainant's readiness and offer to perform his part of the contract, and the neglect of Wood to perform his part. The complainant makes a letter from Wood to him an exhibit in the cause, and a part of his bill of complaint.

The letter is the words following.

PITTSBURG, Dec. 3rd, 1835.

Mr. WM. B. KING,

Sir: In reply to your proposition to rent part of my property in St. Louis, I have to inform you that I will agree to rent the premises at present occupied by Farish, and known as the Union Hotel, together with the brick warehouse occupied by Varin & Reel, for the term of five years, commencing on the first day of April next (provided Farish, the present occupant of the premises, can be ejected in time to give you possession), for which I will require you to pay the yearly rent of $1800, to be paid quarterly, and for the punctual payment of said rent, I will hold all the furniture and personal property on the premises bound as security for the same. I will agree to appropriate one thousand dollars or the first year's rent for the purpose of converting the brick warehouse into a dining room, and for such other repairs as may be necessary and proper. In reply to your proposition to purchase, I have to state that I will sell all that piece of property known as the Union Hotel property, for thirty thousand dollars; five thousand dollars of which to be paid on the first day of next April, at which time I will make the conveyance, and the remaining twenty-five thousand dollars to be paid in six equal annual payments, with interest from the date, at the rate of six per cent. per year; the payment to be secured by bond and mortgage on the property. You will advise me before the first day of next February, whether you will accept either of the above propositions, as I will not consider myself bound by either, unless you give your decision before that time,” &c.

Wood, the defendant, answered, admitting the letter to be written by him; and that in December, 1835, a person calling himself the son of William B. King, the complainant, came to him at Pittsburg, and proposed to hire or buy the Union Hotel property in St. Louis, which the defendant owned, and which was occupied by said Farish as tenant: that said person represented to the defendant that his father, or that his father and himself, using the personal pronoun “we,” kept a hotel in the city of St. Louis; that for that reason they would like to buy said property, if they could, and the defendant would give them time enough, and such terms as they could comply with; and that he replied that he did not wish to sell; that he had not been in St. Louis for a year, and did not know the value of property, nor whether it had risen. The said son of the complainant then said to him, that vacant lots in St. Louis had risen, but that improved property had not risen in St. Louis; that he could buy the Missouri Hotel property, lying on the said square, for $16,000, and that, relying on that representation, he had written the letter mentioned in the bill of complaint. He says that the Union Hotel property means the lot first in the bill mentioned, and not the second therein mentioned, never having been a part of the premises leased with the said hotel, except a privy, on the east end thereof, and always leased to other persons, and for other purposes than for the use of the hotel, to-wit, for warehouses. He states that in March, 1836, he came to St. Louis, and found property had risen at the time the conversation was had by him with the son of the complainant, and that he had been induced by the representation of said son of the complainant to offer said property at a reduced price. He admits that while he was at St. Louis the complainant requested him to convey the property to him, and that he declined doing so for the reasons above given. He insists that there is no sufficient memorandum, or note in writing, of said agreement set out in the bill of complaint. He denies that he ever made any promise in writing to convey said property, save that made in said letter and insists that the proposal made in said letter was not accepted, but on the contrary, new terms were proposed by the complainant, besides those contained in the defendant's letter, to-wit, that the property sold should be both of the lots mentioned in the bill of complaint, whereas said letter included only one of them, and the said complainant's acceptance of the proposals was only on condition that both of the said lots was to be conveyed, and the complainant had so instructed his son, and required him not to accept the proposals as set forth in the said letter of the defendant, but to require said second lot to be included in the bargain, otherwise to refuse to accede to the proposals. He also insists that the said bargain, set forth in the bill of complaint, was never completed and concluded in such manner as to be binding on the parties, or either of them, but on the contrary that all the assurances made by the defendant, whether by letter or oral, were considered by the complainant not as the conclusion of a bargain, but as the terms proposed of a pending treaty, and that in fact they were such only.

The complainants gave in evidence the deposition of William W. King, now become one of the complainants by the death of his father, the original complainant. This deposition, taken before the deponent became a partv to the record, is as follows: That about the 18th November, 1835, he left St. Louis for Pittsburg, and arrived there about the 1st day of December, his only business being to see Mr. Wood, the defendant, about renting or purchasing the Union Hotel property. He saw Wood the same day he arrived, and told him his business, and also told him to think of the matter, and to call on the deponent that evening at the Exchange Hotel. Wood came at the appointed time, and after some conversation stated his terms to the deponent, who was agent to William B. King, the complainant. The terms were, that he would rent the house as used by Farish, as well as the warehouse now occupied by Garvey, to be used as a dining room; in short, the whole house, except the two stores on Main street, and the lot rented by Varin & Reel, for the rent of eighteen hundred dollars, and allow one thousand dollars of the first year's rent to be applied to the repairing of the house generally; or that he would sell to the deponent's father the Union Hotel property, minutely describing the same, as the deponent did not then know the exact situation of the whole property, supposing it ran the same width back to Church, or Second, street, as it was on Main street. This impression Wood corrected, drawing on paper the form of the lots, and stating the number of feet contained in each front; that on Main street being about seventy feet, that on...