Larson v. O'Hara, s. 14,697-(74).

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Citation98 Minn. 71
Docket NumberNos. 14,697-(74).,s. 14,697-(74).
Decision Date11 May 1906

Page 71

98 Minn. 71
Nos. 14,697-(74).
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 11, 1906.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Polk county, Watts, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, after a trial and verdict in favor of plaintiff for $150. Affirmed.

Ray G. Farrington, for appellant.

H. W. Stark and W. E. Rowe, for respondent.


This action was brought to compel specific performance of a contract to convey real estate and to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant's failure and refusal to carry out and perform her agreement to convey. As the case was tried, the action was treated by all parties as one for damages. It appears to have been tried by the court and a jury without objection. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals from an order denying her motion for a judgment in her favor notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial.

The first and second assignments of error cannot be considered. No exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court, and no errors were assigned in the motion for a new trial. By a liberal construction

Page 72

of the other assignment we are enabled to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

Prior to March 7, 1905, the appellant, Mary J. O'Hara, was the owner of eighty acres of land situated near Crookston. The Odett & Ball Land Company was a partnership engaged in business as real-estate brokers. On November 26, 1904, Mrs. O'Hara wrote to these parties, stating that she would accept $3,800 net cash for the land in question, provided they could sell it by January 1, 1905. On January 25, 1905, evidently in reply to an offer, she again wrote to them that she would accept $3,675 for the land and allow them a commission of $80 for making the sale. On January 30, 1905, she wrote again, suggesting or agreeing to some modifications in the terms of payment. On January 31 the brokers telegraphed her:

Letter received. Party accepts your offer. All cash. See letter.

On the same day they wrote Mrs. O'Hara a letter and inclosed a check for $150 "as earnest money for the purchase of the land." In this letter they stated that

The party to whom we are selling this land was in today and we showed him your letter and he accepted your proposition, but will pay all cash as soon as the contract is completed.

Directions were then given Mrs. O'Hara with reference to the preparation of the abstract and other papers connected with the proposed transfer. On February 2d the Odett & Ball Land Company, assuming to act for Mrs. O'Hara, signed a written contract of sale of the land to the plaintiff, Larson, which contained the terms and conditions of the sale. The action is based upon this contract.

Mrs. O'Hara never directed the execution of the contract, and never saw it until it was produced at the trial. She received the letter of January 31 inclosing the check, and on February 2 replied that she would furnish an abstract and would send the deed as directed. She then, in the same letter, informs them that she had purchased the land from P. J. McGuire, and at the time of the purchase had agreed to reconvey the land to McGuire at any time within three years upon the

Page 73

performance of certain conditions and the payment of a debt due from McGuire to her. She stated that the three years had expired, and that McGuire had not complied with the conditions and that his rights under the contract had been forfeited, and that, if necessary, she would go into court and have the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Larson v. O'Hara
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • May 11, 1906
    ...98 Minn. 71107 N.W. 821LARSONv.O'HARA.Supreme Court of Minnesota.May 11, Appeal from District Court, Polk County; William Watts, Judge. Action by Hans Larson against Mary J. O'Hara. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new tri......

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