Loveridge v. Coles
| Decision Date | 26 April 1898 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10,949 - (59).,s. 10,949 - (59). |
| Citation | 72 Minn. 57 |
| Parties | FLORENCE LOVERIDGE v. R. M. COLES. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
F. V. Comfort, for appellant.
Clapp & Macartney, for respondent.
This action was originally commenced by Nancy J. Loveridge to recover from the defendant the amount of two promissory notes dated October 7, 1895, for $400 each, made by the defendant to her.
The answer admitted the execution of the notes, and alleged that at the time of making them, and as a part of the same transaction, and as a consideration therefor, the payee of the notes executed to the defendant her bond for a deed, whereby she agreed to sell to him the land therein described, and covenanted for herself, her heirs and personal representatives, upon payment of the two notes and one other for the sum of $400, due October 7, 1897, to execute to him "a warranty deed in fee simple, free from all incumbrances," of the land therein described, which is situated in the county of Washington, in this state; that, for the purpose of inducing the defendant to enter into such transaction, she fraudulently represented to him that she was the owner of the land, and could and would convey to him, upon the payment of the purchase price thereof, an absolute title; that in fact she was not then, and never has been since, the owner of the land; and that she is a nonresident of this state, and insolvent. The answer prayed for a cancellation of the notes and general relief. The reply admitted the making of the bond, and that it and the notes were executed as one transaction, and put in issue the other allegations of the answer.
The plaintiff died pending the action, and her administratrix was substituted as plaintiff. The trial court made its findings of fact, and, as a conclusion of law, directed judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. The defendant appealed from an order denying the motion for a new trial.
The principal question on this appeal is whether the trial court's conclusion of law was justified by the facts found, which are, in substance, the following: Samuel C. Plummer, on June 2, 1856, entered the land in question by locating a land warrant thereon, and received from the proper local land officer the usual certificate, certifying that he had so entered it. Afterwards, on April 15, 1857, Plummer, by a writing by him signed, sealed, and indorsed on the back of such certificate, assumed to assign the same, and the land therein described, to H. H. Loveridge, his heirs and assigns. The assignment was in these words:
The certificate and assignment thereon was recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the proper county on April 27, 1883. The United States issued a patent for the land, August 18, 1858, to Plummer. H. H. Loveridge, on July 10, 1886, made his quitclaim deed directly to his wife, Nancy J. Loveridge, whereby he assumed to convey to her, among other lands, the land in question. Loveridge died in 1887, leaving his widow, Nancy J. Loveridge, and his children, Florence and William P. Loveridge, as his sole heirs at law. Each of the children is now living, and is more than 21 years of age. Plummer and wife, September 2, 1892, executed a quitclaim deed of the land to Nancy J. Loveridge. The deed was duly recorded.
On October 7, 1895, Nancy J. Loveridge sold the land to the defendant for $1,200, to be paid by his three promissory notes, for $400, due in four months, one year, and two years, respectively, and she executed to him her bond for a deed, as alleged in the answer. It was agreed in the bond that the defendant was to have at once possession of the land. Nancy J. Loveridge died intestate, leaving, as her sole heirs at law, the two children of herself and husband, Florence and William P. Loveridge. The plaintiff, as administratrix of Nancy J. Loveridge, is now in possession of all three of the notes, no part of which has been paid, but only two of them were due at the time of the trial.
The trial court also found that the other allegations of the answer were not proven. This, in effect, is a finding that no representations were made and relied on as alleged in the answer, and that Nancy J. Loveridge did not die insolvent. The defendant makes the claim that neither of these findings is sustained by the evidence. The finding as to insolvency is sustained by the evidence, but the evidence is such as to require a finding that the vendor did, by her agent, represent that she was the absolute owner of the land, and that the defendant relied upon the representation, and, induced thereby, entered into the contract for the purchase of the land, but it is not such as to justify a finding that there was in fact any intentional false and fraudulent representations as to the title. The defendant's contention, that such a misrepresentation as to the title of the land, although innocently made and under the belief of its truth, having been relied upon by him, is, in legal effect, the same as if it had been an intentional misrepresentation, may be conceded. But such concession can only be material on the question of the right of the defendant to rescind.
It is clear from the facts found that the obligor did not have a marketable title to the whole of the land at the time she made the bond and agreed to convey to the defendant. Plummer, upon his entry of the land and the delivery to him of the land officer's certificate, became the equitable owner thereof. County v. Hunter, 42 Minn. 312, 44 N. W. 201. Such equitable title passed, by his assignment of the certificate and sale of the land, to H. H. Loveridge, and, when Plummer acquired the legal title upon the patent being issued to him, he held the legal title in trust for the equitable owner of the land, H. H. Loveridge, who attempted to convey his title to his wife, Nancy J., by a deed executed to her directly. This deed was void (G. S. 1894, § 5534; Luse v. Reed, 63 Minn. 5, 65 N. W. 91), and, on Loveridge's death, his widow, Nancy J., became the equitable owner of one-third of the land and his children of two-thirds thereof. After Mrs. Loveridge acquired the legal title, by deed from Plummer, she owned one-third of the land, and held the legal title as to the other two-thirds in trust for the children. Upon her death the whole legal and equitable title vested in the children.
This summary of the title is made upon the assumption that H. H. Loveridge made no testamentary disposition of the land, and that there are no debts of either parent chargeable against the land, there being no evidence to the contrary.
The plaintiff claims that the facts found fully justify the conclusion of law by the trial court for two reasons: (a) The heirs of the obligor are bound to convey to the defendant, upon his performance on his part of the conditions of the bond, the undivided two-thirds of the land which they inherited from their father, because they are also the heirs of their mother, the obligor in the bond, and equally bound with her to convey the land by the covenants in the bond which purport to bind her and her heirs. (b) The facts found do not constitute a defense to this action, if it be conceded that the heirs are not so bound.
1. The first proposition is untenable. It is entirely competent for the owner of land to create any charges on his land, or make any contracts in reference to it he sees fit, and thereby bind the land in the hands of his heirs, but the liability of heirs for the debts or covenants of their ancestors in no event extends beyond the property inherited by them or its value. G. S. 1894, c. 77. Therefore the children of the vendor in this case are bound, by her covenant, to convey the land to the extent which they inherited it from her, but as to the undivided two-thirds which they inherited from their father they are not bound by their mother's covenant to convey it to the defendant.
2. Whether or not the second proposition is correct presents a more serious question, and will be first considered from the standpoint of the strict legal rights of the parties. It is elementary that, where the covenants or promises in an executory contract to convey land are mutual and dependent, the party seeking to enforce the performance by the other must first perform or tender performance on his part before he can maintain an action on the promise of the other party. Thus, where, in such a contract, the whole purchase price is to be paid at one time, on a day named, and the land conveyed upon such payment being made, the promises are dependent, and the payment and conveyance are to be simultaneous acts. The vendor, in such a case, must, if he would maintain an action to recover the purchase price, be then both able and ready to convey a marketable title.
To continue reading
Request your trial