Luzader v. Richmond
| Decision Date | 23 May 1891 |
| Docket Number | 15,121 |
| Citation | 27 N.E. 736,128 Ind. 344 |
| Parties | Luzader v. Richmond et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Sullivan Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
W. S Maple, for appellant.
J. T Hays and H. J. Hays, for appellees.
This was an action by the appellant against the appellees, in the Sullivan Circuit Court, to enforce the specific performance of a contract to convey real estate.
The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and the correctness of this ruling presents the only question for our consideration.
The complaint alleges that on the 10th day of March, 1889, the appellees were the owners in fee simple of the land in controversy; that on that day the appellant purchased the land from the appellees, at the agreed price of seven hundred dollars, five hundred dollars of which sum was to be paid in cash, and two hundred dollars in notes secured by appellee's lien upon the land; that on the 23d day of March, 1889, W. H. Snyder, a justice of the peace, notified the appellant that the appellees had executed to him a deed for said land in pursuance of said contract, and had left the same with said justice to be delivered to the appellant; that in fact said deed was so left with Snyder to be delivered by him to the appellant pursuant to said contract and purchase; that the appellant at once executed his note for two hundred dollars, secured by mortgage on said land, and delivered them to the appellees, who accepted the same; that he tendered to appellees five hundred dollars in money; that after said notes and mortgage had been accepted, and said money tendered, the appellant demanded said deed from Snyder, in pursuance of said purchase, but said Snyder refused to deliver the same, and thereafter, without the knowledge or consent of the appellant, returned the deed to the appellees.
Prayer that appellees be required to deliver the deed to the appellant, and that they be required to comply with the terms of the contract.
It is contended by the appellant that the delivery of the deed to Snyder vested in him the title to the land therein described, and that by reason of such fact the case was taken out of the statute of frauds.
It is conceded by both parties to this controversy that unless the delivery of the deed to Snyder vested the title in the appellant, the case is within the statute of frauds, and that the appellant can not succeed in this action. The case of Freeland v. Charnley, 80 Ind. 132, is relied on by both parties to this suit, and, as held in that case, the question is as to whether the deed was unconditionally delivered, so that it passed from the control of the appellees, or as to whether it was delivered as an escrow.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moslander v. Beldon
...statute of frauds. No question as to the effect of a delivery in escrow and a full performance by the vendee was involved. The facts in the Luzader case were similar to the facts in the Freeland No escrow agreement was there involved. The cases cited were correctly decided under the well-es......
-
Moslander v. Beldon, 13227.
...of this contention appellant cites and relies upon Freeland v. Charnley, 80 Ind. 132,Pulse v. Miller, 81 Ind. 190, and Luzader v. Richmond, 128 Ind. 344, 27 N. E. 736. Neither of these cases are in point. In the first case, Freeland wrote a letter proposing to buy certain real estate at a d......
-
Bean v. Holmes
...690, 23 C. C. A. 405; Livingston Waterworks Co. v. City of Livingston, 53 Mont. 1, 162 Pac. 381, L. R. A. 1917D, 1074; Luzader v. Richmond, 128 Ind. 344, 27 N. E. 736; Gates v. Gamble, 53 Mich. 181, 18 N. W. 631; Shumway v. Kitzman, 28 S. D. 577, 134 N. W. 325; Zimmerman v. Rhoades, 226 Pa.......
-
Wilson v. Beaty
...when there is no certainty as to the time of payments of the purchase money, as has been held by different courts. Luzadher v. Richmond, 128 Ind. 344, 27 N. E. 736; Gates v. Gamble, 53 Mich. 181, 18 N. W. 631; Shumway v. Kitzman, 28 S. D. 577, 134 N. W. 325; Zimmerman v. Rhoads, 226 Pa. 174......