Luckett v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 31 March 1866
• Citation: 37 Mo. 388
• Parties: HENRY T. LUCKETT, Respondent, v. ANTHONY C. WILLIAMSON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 Mo. 388

HENRY T. LUCKETT, Respondent,

v.ANTHONY C. WILLIAMSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1866.

Appeal from the St. Louis Land Court.

This was a suit to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a tract of land in St Charles county.

The petition stated that on October 6th, 1857, he sold to the defendant a tract of land in the Portage des Sioux common fields, part of lots 122, 123, 124, 125, and 126, and then describing the same by courses and distances, and containing 159 44-100 acres; that by the terms of sale, $2,500 were to be paid in cash, $2,500 on October 1, 1858, and $2,500 on October 1, 1859, the deferred payments to bear interest from October 6, 1857; that defendant paid $2,500 in cash; that it was agreed that as soon as a survey could be made, plaintiff should make and deliver a sufficient deed with covenants of warranty, and defendant should give his notes for the deferred payments, secured by deed of trust; that plaintiff gave defendant a receipt setting forth the terms of sale; that plaintiff tendered defendant a bond for a deed, which defendant refused; that defendant took possession of said land in October, 1857, and has retained the same; that defendant refused to make the deferred pay ments; that he tendered defendant a deed with warranty; that he brought into court a deed dated August 13, 1861; and praying judgment for $5,000, with interest from October 6, 1857, and that said judgment be enforced by a sale of the land.

This suit was commenced August 15, 1861. The defendant filed his answer, at the September term of the court, denying that he bargained for the land as described in the petition, and alleging that the plaintiff, representing that he had good title to the farm then claimed by him, and that said farm contained 160 acres, and that he knew that by a survey made only 27 acres were under the waters of lake Marais Temps Clair; that he did bargain for said farm at the sum of $7,500, and paid $500 cash, and that he was to pay $2,000 on October 1, 1857, when plaintiff was to give him a good warranty deed, securing an indefeasible title in fee simple, and defendant was to give his notes; that by the contract there were to be but 27 acres in the lake, whereas there were 44 acres under the waters of said lake; he denied that plaintiff tendered a bond for a deed; denied that he was to give a deed of trust; denied that the plaintiff tendered a deed conveying title; and denied that plaintiff had the title to convey; alleged that the contract on his part was verbal, not witnessed by any writing signed by him; specified the defects of title; alleged that he had made valuable improvements; and prayed judgment for the $2,500 paid, with interest, and for the value of the improvements; and offered to surrender possession upon being paid.

By consent of parties, the venue was changed to the St. Louis Land Court, in which the defendant filed an amended answer, setting forth the same matters, and pleading the statute of fraud expressly, and claiming its benefit, offering to surrender possession, and praying that the value of his improvements be set off against rents and profits; that he might have judgment for the $2,500 paid, and interest, and that the land might be sold to pay the same.

At the trial in the Land Court, plaintiff called from defendant's possession, and read in evidence, a receipt given by him to defendant, dated August 31, 1857, stating: “Received of A. C. W. $500 in part pay of my farm, which I have this day sold him for $7,500, to give possession October 1, 1857, upon his paying $2,000, and giving his notes with interest, when I am to give him a general warranty deed, retaining a lien “or the notes.”

Plaintiff also gave parol testimony as to the contract of sale; proved a tender of the deed dated August 13, 1861, on August 14, 1861.

Defendant then proved the defect of the title to part of the land, in the heirs of Whittley, and showed from the record of a suit of one St Louis v. Luckett, that he knew of the defects. He also offered testimony to show that by the contract there were to be but 27 acres in the lake; and proved the value of his improvements. The title to the Clement lot No. 125, had been made good since the sale. In rebuttal, plaintiff offered evidence as to the conversation at the time of the sale; then read a deed from the heirs of Samuel Whittley, dated June 29, 1860, conveying the Whittley lot, No. 122; an act February 10, 1864, (Sess. Acts 1863-4, p. 279,) authorizing Adeline Whittley, a minor, to make the deed ratifying the previous deed in which she had joined; a deed from said Adeline Whittley, dated April 16, 1864, but a few days before the trial; a deed from Wm. A. Whittley, dated December 9, 1863.

Thomas Whittley, the confirmee of lot 122, died 1816, leaving issue 1. Paul; 2, Nancy, wife of John Patton; 3. Samuel who left issue, Angelina, wife of Austin A. Clark; Mary, wife of S. J. Melvin; William A., and Adeline. Patton and wife, and the issue of Samnel Whittley, all joined in the deed of June 29, 1860.

Paul Whittley died about 1836, leaving a widow. At the sale, plaintiff did not have the Clermont title, but had procured it before the trial.

Whittelsey, for appellant.

I. That the appellant was entitled to have the land with a good and complete title, was decided in the former case beween the same parties--31 Mo. 54. (Washington et al. v. Ogden, 1 Black., U. S., 540.) The plaintiff did not at the trial show a perfect title. As Paul Whittley took by descent one-third of the Whittley lot, his widow, there being no issue, took one-half of his real estate absolutely. (R. C. 1835, p. 228, § 3.) The words of the Code are, “shall be entitled,” not “shall be endowed,” as in the first section, and to that interest her heirs are entitled if she be dead. There is no evidence of any administration, nor of any will.

II. Defendant may insist upon the statute of frauds, although he confess the contract as stated. (R. C. 1855, p 1238, § 47; R. C. 1855, p. 807, § 5; Notes to Lester v. Foxcraft, 1 Wh. & Tud. L. C. Eq. 567, 573; 2 Sto. Eq. § 757; Moore v. Edward, 4 Ves. 23; Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. 12; Rowe v. Teed, 15 Ves. 375; Sir Wm. Grant's opinion in Blagden v. Bardbear, 12 Ves. 471; Whitbread v. Brockhurst, 1 Bro. Ch. 407; Whitehurst v. Bebis, 2 Bro. Ch. 569; Hook v. Turner, 22 Mo. 333, 335.)

The defendant denies the contract, as alleged, and charges that there were to be but 27 acres in the lake, whereas there were 44 acres of land which were of no value to the defendant.

The receipt given by plaintiff requires parol proof to identify the land, and the contract could not on that memorandum be enforced as against him. (King v. Wood, 7 Mo. 389; Falman v. Dent, 3 Due. 395; Abel v. Radcliffe, 13 J. R. 297; Blagden v. Bradlee, 12 Ves 466.) And as the defendant denies the contract as alleged, if it be enforced at all it must be enforced as he states it.

III. The decree is erroneous in requiring the whole of the unpaid purchase money, with interest from October 1, 1857, to be paid instanter, and that the land be sold immediately.

The charge of interest for the whole period since the sale was erroneous. If vendee offered to rescind on getting back his money, he need not pay interest. (Rutledge v. Smith, 1 McCord. Ch. 399, interest refused until title tendered; Osborne v. Bremas, 1 Dessauss. 486; Wightman v. Reeside, 1 Dessauss. 578.)

The judgment of the court treats this case as if it were a suit at law upon an executed contract for the purchase money, whereas it is a bill in equity to compel the specific performance of an executory contract, the terms of which the defendant denies as alleged, and sets up a variation. He does not even confess the contract as alleged, but varies it; and the plaintiff does not accept the contract as varied, and prays it to be enforced as claimed by defendant, but demands that his own claim be enforced.

The plaintiff does not offer to do equity; he claims a legal right, which it is shown he does not have.

IV. The submissions of the answer do not bind the defendant when the plaintiff amends his bill. (Ld. Abingdon v. Butler, 1 Ves. 206, 210.) They could only be binding when the defendant varies the contract, and submits to perform it as varied, and does not rely upon the statute. If the plaintiff amend and accept the contract as defendant offers to perform it, it would then be too late for the defendant, in his answer to the amended bill, to insist upon the statute. That would only be in cases where the plaintiff accepted, as was the case in Spurrier v. Fitzgerald, 6 Ves. 548, and then the defendant could not deny his sub mission. But that is not this case. (Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Ed.Ch. 24 15 Ves. 353; Roberts v. Massey, 13 Ves 561.)

Lewis, for respondent.

I. The plaintiff exhibited at the trial below a perfect title to the land contracted for. The only objection raised against it by appellant is, that the dower right of Paul Whittley's widow is outstanding in her heirs. But it does not appear that dower was ever assigned to her. Consequently she had no descendible estate; none that either she or her heirs could even maintain ejectment upon, or that could even be sold under execution. (Waller v. Mardus, 29 Mo. 27.)

There was, therefore, no title outstanding in the heirs of Paul Whittley's deceased widow. The statute (R. C. 1835, p. 228, § 3,) treats of the right of the widow as widow and dowress, and not as an heir.

II. While it may be admitted that a defendant can insist on the statute of frauds, and at the same time admit the existence of the contract as stated, yet it by no means follows that he may in the same breath claim the benefit of the statute and the benefit of the contract. This would be, as the defendant has attempted to do in this case, claiming a specific execution, or damages for the non-performance of an absolutely void contract, which never had any legal existence at all. But this...