Lydiard v. Coffee

• Decision Date: 28 May 1926
• Docket Number: No. 25238.,25238.
• Citation: 209 N.W. 263,167 Minn. 389
• Parties: LYDIARD et al. v. COFFEE et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

209 N.W. 263

167 Minn. 389

LYDIARD et al. v. COFFEE et al.

No. 25238.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 28, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Mathias Baldwin, Judge.

Suit by Frank C. Lydiard and others against Alma V. Coffee and others. After findings for defendants, plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied, and they appeal. Affirmed.

W. L. Hursh, of Minneapolis, for appellants.

Ueland & Ueland, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

LEES, C.

This case was here before on an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. See 158 Minn. 520, 198 N. W. 140.

The purpose of the action is to compel the defendant trust company to deliver to the plaintiff Lydiard a deed, executed by the defendants Dr. C. C. Coffee and his wife Alma V., and deposited in escrow, and to pay to Lydiard the proceeds of the subsequent sale of one of the lots described in the deed. Dr. and Mrs. Coffee will hereafter be referred to as defendants, and they and the plaintiff Lydiard are the real parties in interest. The principal issues of fact are whether the plaintiffs Skarp and Dickson are indebted to Dr. Coffee, and, if they are, whether the trust company holds the deed as security for the debt.

The trial court found in defendants' favor on both issues, and determined that the amount due from Skarp and Dickson was $2,038, with interest from May 25, 1918, plus taxes paid by defendants and interest thereon. Upon the application of the plaintiffs, some amendments to the findings were made, but their motion for a new trial was denied, and they appealed.

The record discloses, without much dispute, facts which may be summarized as follows: Mrs. Coffee held the title to a tract of land in Shadywood near the channel connecting Crystal Bay with the west arm of Lake Minnetonka. A county road crossed the land, and was carried over the channel by a bridge which Hennepin county was about to rebuild. The defendants believed that the value of their property would be enhanced if the new bridge was located about 100 feet west of the old one, and travel thus diverted to a street in the plat of Shadywood west of the road then in use. They employed the plaintiffs Skarp and Dickson to go to the county board and try to induce the members thereof to change the location of the bridge. If they succeeded, they were to get five lots in Shadywood and a tract of unplatted marsh land nearby. Deeds of the property were to be executed to them or to any other person they might name, and defendants were to deposit the deeds in escrow with the trust company, to be held until the bridge was completed and opened for travel at the new location. Except for the omission of any mention of the deed of the marsh land, all these terms were set out in a contract in writing, executed by the parties on May 20, 1918, and designated in the record as Exhibit A.

Immediately thereafter Skarp and Dickson interviewed the members of the county board, and, as a result of their proper and lawful intercessions, the board, on May 22d, resolved to change the location of the bridge as desired, provided the expense to the county did not exceed $1,500, and on condition that a satisfactory bond be furnished to idemnify the county from greater expense.

Skarp and Dickson learned that the total cost of the change would be $5,538, and that it would be necessary to raise $4,038 from private sources to bring about the result for which they were striving. On May 25th they approached Lydiard, and ascertained that he would advance $2,000. Dickson then went to Dr. Coffee, and got a certified check from him for $2,038. That check and one from Lydiard for $2,000 were obtained and turned over to the county auditor on May 25th, and on the same day Skarp, Dickson, and Dr. Coffee entered into a contract with the county which provided for the preparation of new plans and specifications for the bridge, a call for bids from contractors, and the construction of the bridge at the new location upon the conditions heretofore mentioned. Shortly thereafter the required bond was furnished. The county cashed the checks, built the bridge, and opened it for travel prior to November 1, 1919.

The deeds from the defendants were executed on May 25th, and deposited with the trust company then or a few days later. At the request of Skarp and Dickson, Lydiard's name was inserted as grantee in the deed of the lots, and the other deed was executed in blank. On May 27th Skarp and Dickson assigned their rights under Exhibit A to Lydiard, reserving a contingent interest in the proceeds of the sale of the lots.

One of the lots has been sold and the purchase price deposited with the trust company pursuant to a written contract, to which plaintiffs and defendants are parties.

These are the mooted questions: (a) Did the defendants donate $2,038 to Hennepin county to procure the relocation of the bridge, or did they loan that amount to Skarp and Dickson? (b) If the money was loaned, does the trust company hold the deeds as security for the debt? (c) Did the defendants have notice of the assignment to Lydiard?

Defendants both testified that the money was loaned, and put in evidence their Exhibit 2, which reads:

...