Knopf v. Hansen

• Decision Date: 18 July 1887
• Parties: KNOPF AND ANOTHER v HANSEN AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

37 Minn. 215

33 N.W. 781

KNOPF AND ANOTHERvHANSEN AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 18, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Where, in pursuance of a contract between certain parties, a deed executed by one of them was deposited with a third person for delivery to the other, who was the grantee therein, upon a fulfillment by him of the terms of the contract, held, that the deed was delivered in escrow, and that the grantee was entitled to the same upon proof of a compliance with the stipulated conditions on his part.

And where, in such case, the grantor's wife joined with him in the execution of the deed before the conditional delivery thereof, held, that the homestead rights were thereby waived, and that she was not a necessary party to an action to enforce a final delivery of the deed under the contract.

By the terms of the contract the consideration of the deed was the sale and delivery of a stock of goods, and a transfer of the lease of the store building. An invoice of the goods had also been made as required by the contract, and the amount and value thereof fixed to the satisfaction of both parties, and, upon the second day after the completion thereof, the vendor was ready to deliver the same, and duly tendered to the purchaser the key of the store where the goods were, and an assignment of the lease duly executed, as and for a delivery of the property agreed to be transferred, and, upon the refusal of the latter to accept the same, made a deposit thereof with the holder of the deed for the use and benefit of the purchaser. There being no change in fact in the amount or condition of the goods, and no objection being made by him to the form or place of the tender, evidence of the foregoing facts held sufficient to show a compliance with the terms of the contract, and to entitle the seller to a delivery of the deed.

Held, also, that the purchaser was not entitled, under the evidence in the case, to exact, as a further condition, that the seller should allow him to make a re-examination of the goods, and a comparison thereof with the invoice previously made, in order to verify the accuracy of the same before final acceptance.

Appeal from district court, Waseca county.

Sawyer, Abbott & Sawyer, for Knopf and another, respondents.

B. S. Lewis, for Hansen, appellant.

VANDERBURGH, J.

This controversy arose out of a contract made between these parties, by the terms of which plaintiffs agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant their stock of merchandise, with store fixtures, then being in a certain store building in the village of Waseca theretofore occupied by them, and held under a lease, and also to assign to him such lease, in consideration of which the defendant agreed to convey to the plaintiff Michael Knopf the house and lot therein described, then being the homestead of the defendant, at the price of $2,000. An invoice of the goods was...