Mathews d al. v. Jarrett el al.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1882
• Citation: 20 W.Va. 415
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Mathews d al. v. Jarrett el al.

20 W.Va. 415

Mathews d al.

v.Jarrett el al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted June 26, 1882

Decided October 28, 1882.

1. A contract which a court of equity will specifically enforce must be certain as well as fair in its terms; and the certainty required has reference both to the description of the property and the estate to be conveyed. Uncertainty as to either, not capable of being removed by extrinsic evidence is fatal to any suit for a specific performance, (p 422.)

2. Extrinsic evidence in such case is only admissible to a very lim-ited extent. It cannot be used to supply any defect or omission in the terms of the written contract; but is strictly confined, in cases where no fraud, mistake or other equitable incident of a like character is alleged, to the function of explanation, and of exhibiting the surrounding circumstances in the manner and only to the same extent that such evidence is permissible in the interpretation of all other written instruments, (p. 422.)

3. In a suit for the specific execution of a contract for the purchase of land, where neither the contract itself, nor the extrinsic proof of the surrounding circumstances, identifies or defines the tract or boundaries of the land, or refers to anything by which it may be identified with reasonable certainty, the court will not decree a specific performance, but will dismiss the bill. (p. 422.)

Appeal from and supersedeas to a decree of the circuit court of the county of Greenbrier, rendered on the 8th day of November, 1879, in a cause in said court then pending, wherein Allen Mathews and others were plaintiffs, and Joseph Jarrett and others were defendants, allowed upon the petition of said plaintiffs.

Hon. Homer A. Holt, judge of the eighth judicial circuit, rendered the decree appealed from.

The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court,

Samuel Price, J. W. Davis and John A. Preston for appellants.

John W. Harris for appellees cited the following authorities: 1 Greenl. Ev. § 558 note(l); 3 Com. 424; 5 Gilm. 113; 2 Story Eq. Juris. § 776; 14 Pet. 172; 1 Johns. Chy. 370; 21 Gratt. 475; 5 Otto 200; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 200; 2 Pat, &H. 616. Snyder, Judge, announced the opinion of the Court:

This suit was brought in the circuit court of Greenbrier county by Allen Mathews and Oliver Jarrett to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of ten acres of land, situate on the waters of Muddy creek in said county, and on which the plaintiff Mathews then resided. The bill was filed at the April rules, 1879, and avers, that the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant, Joseph Jarrett, for the purchase of said land; that they paid him on said purchase forty-five dollars and twenty-five cents and, on the 27th day of March, 1871, received from him a title-bond and were put in possession at the same time; that on March 16, 1874, they paid thirty-nine dollars and seventyfive cents, and afterwards, also, the sum of fifty dollars; that they have been deprived of said title-bond and cannot say what the exact terms of the contract were; but they were to pay two hundred dollars for the land and were to have a number of years within which to pay it; and that said Jarrett was to convey the land to them when all the purchase money was paid; that the plaintiff, M'athewrs, built a house on said ten acres and otherwise improved it; that on December 20, 1876, the said Jarrett by fraud and misrepresentation obtained from the plaintiff, Mathews, the title-bond and gave him in lieu thereof an agreement which said plaintiff signed, being decived as to its contents by the defendants. Said agreement is made a part of the bill as exhibit "H"; that said Jarrett has sold and conveyed the farm, of which said ten acres was a part, to his son-in-law, and daughter, the defendants E. P. Hill and Mary F. Hill his wife; that soon after the conveyance to said Hills the defendant, Jarrett, informed the plaintiff, Mathews, that the Hills would carry out the contract with the plaintiffs for said ten acres of land; that since then they have paid said Hills in money and labor a large amount which they have unjustly claimed of them as rents; and that the defendants refuse to convey to them the said land although they have paid for the same in full and complied with each and every part of their contract.

The agreement filed with the bill as Exhibit "H" is as follows:

" Whereas, I received of Allen Mathews and Oliver Jarrett (both colored), on the 27th of March, 1871, forty-five dollars and twenty-five cents, on conditions that if they paid me one hundred and fifty-four dollars and seventy-five cents (in addition to the first amount) by the 1st day of December, 1871, they, Mathews and Oliver Jarrett, were to have ten acres of land on the west side of the branch on the Keeny place (where said Mathews now resides), but said Matthews and Oliver Jarrett having forfeited said contract by reason of not paying said amount at the time specified. I received thirtynine dollars and seventy-five cents March the 16th, 1874, which amount I placed to the credit of said Mathews to be applied as payments on rents of said land, they, Mathews and 0. Jarrett, having forfeited all rights as purchasers; but should the said Mathews come forward in a short time with the necessary amounts of cash, I will sell him the land in question, provided E. F. Hill, to whom I have lately made a conveyance of said land, agrees to the same.

"In witness whereof, we affix our hands and seals the 20th day of December, 1876.

" Joseph Jarrett, [seal.]

his

" Allen [X Mathews, [seal.]

mark.

"Witness: E. F. Hill."

All the defendants demurred generally to, and answered, the plaintiffs' bill. The defendant, Jarrett, in his answer, states, that on the 27th day of March, 1871, he entered into a contract in writing with the plaintiffs for the conditional sale to them of ten acres of his farm on Muddy creek, by the terms of which contract the plaintiffs then paid him forty-five dollars and twenty-five cents, and he bound himself to convey said land to them on condition that they paid by the 1st day of December, 1871, the further sum of one hundred and fifty-four dollars and seventy-five cents; that the plaintiffs were put in possession of the land, but never afterwards paid anything on said purchase; that plaintiffs having forfeited said contract by their failure to pay said one hundred and fifty-four dollars and seventy-five cents by December 1, 1871, the plaintiff, Oliver Jarrett, shortly thereafter left said land and never until the filing of the hill in this suit returned or set up any claim to it; that the plaintiff, Mathews, desiring to continue in the possession of the land, then agreed to occupy it as a tenant and pay rent for it, and on March 16, 1874, he paid this defendant thirty-nine dollars and seventyfive cents in work on account of rents, and that plaintiffs never paid him any other than the two sums aforesaid, and the rents and profits of said land, during the occupancy of the plaintiffs, amounted to more than both said sums; that by deed, dated October 16, 1876, he conveyed his farm including said ten acres, to the defendants, E. F. and Mary P. Hill; that said contract, Exhibit "H," was fully understood and freely executed by the plaintiff. Mathews, and he knew at the time that said land had been sold to defendants, Hill, from whom he subsequently rented the same; that he has not now and never had the title-bond after it was delivered to plaintiffs and he does not know where it is. He denies that he ever told said Mathews that the Hills would carry out said contract, or that said title-bond was obtained from said Mathews by fraud and misrepresentation, or otherwise.

The defendants, Hill, in their answer say, that they purchased the land in the bill mentioned for a valuable consideration without notice of any sale to the plaintiffs; and by deed, dated October 16, 1876, their co-deiendant, Jarrett, and wife conveyed the same to them; that neither of the plaintiffs ever paid them anything in money or labor on account of said alleged purchase. The deed from Joseph Jarrett and wife to said Hills is exhibited as a part of their answer, and the consideration is stated in it to be tour thousand five hundred dollars, to secure the payment of which an express lien is retained therein, and it was admitted to record in Greenbrier county on the 30th day of October, 1876.

The plaintiffs joined in the defendants' demurrer and replied generally to the answers. A number of depositions were taken, both on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants. These depositions are very contradictory, and some of them, either from the ignorance of the witnesses, or a wanton disregard of any obligation to give honest and unbiased testimony, are so...