McLaughlin v. Gholson
| Decision Date | 19 January 1970 |
| Citation | 210 Va. 498,171 S.E.2d 816 |
| Parties | Tucker Watkins McLAUGHLIN et al., v. Claude GHOLSON. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
John W. Pearsall, John W. Pearsall, III, Richmond (A. G. Hutcheson, Chase City, McCaul, Grigsby & Pearsall, Richmond, on brief), for appellants.
Frank C. Maloney, III, Richmond, Reginal H. Pettus, Keysville (Richard W. Hogan, Hirschler & Fleischer, Richmond, on brief), for appellee.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON, HARRISON, COCHRAN, and HARMAN, JJ.
Tucker Watkins McLaughlin and Carroll G. Mays filed their bill of complaint alleging that Claude Gholson held title to a certain tract of land as constructive trustee for them. They prayed that the court order him, or a special commissioner of the court appointed for the purpose, to convey legal title to them upon payment of the sum of $13,950, less reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court refused to grant the relief sought.
By agreement dated September 29, 1966 Glenn Robinette, then a widower, for the consideration of $50 granted to McLaughlin and Mays the exclusive option to buy a tract of 162.9 acres in Charlotte County for $13,950. To exercise the option McLaughlin and Mays were required to give notice to Robinette on or before midnight, December 1, 1966, and to close the transaction within 30 days thereafter. The option agreement contained the following provisions:
'It is understood that the foregoing property is subject to a deed of trust in favor of the Farmers Home Administration, and in the event the said FHA shall not approve all the terms of this option, then it shall be null and void.'
An executed copy of the agreement was recorded in the Clerk's Office of Charlotte County on November 29, 1966. Attached to and recorded with the instrument was a certificate of McLaughlin and Mays that they had notified Robinette by certified mail of their intention to exercise the option.
By letter dated December 5, 1966 Farmers Home Administration advised counsel for McLaughlin and Mays of the amount required on that date to pay the outstanding balance of the Robinette obligation secured by deed of trust on his farm and the daily interest which would accrue each day thereafter until paid.
During the option period McLaughlin and Mays had sought to interest Gholson in purchasing the Robinette farm and had informed him that they had an option to buy it. But Gholson made a direct offer of $15,000 to Robinette for the farm. By letter dated December 28, 1966 McLaughlin notified Gholson that he and Mays were holding Robinette to performance of his contract with them. Nevertheless, by deed dated January 3, 1967, and recorded January 9, 1967 in the Clerk's Office of Charlotte County, Gholson acquired title to the land from Robinette, who had remarried, and his wife. Gholson paid Robinette $14,000 in cash and gave a note for $1,000, the balance of the purchase price. McLaughlin and Mays then initiated this chancery cause for the purpose of requiring Gholson to convey the farm to them for the purchase price of $13,950 specified in the option agreement.
This controversy turns upon the following stipulation agreed to by opposing counsel:
'STIPULATION
'Come now the complainants and defendant by counsel and stipulate that the sole issue for the Court is its construction of the contract to determine whether under its terms and at the time C.J. Gholson took legal title to the farm, the obligation of Glenn Robinette had become void for absence of any signature of an authorized official of Farmers Home Administration to the writing dated September 29, 1966, the defendant agreeing that he has no defense by which to avoid the relief prayed for in the Bill of Complaint if such was not the case.'
There is no dispute as to the facts. They have been agreed to by pleadings and admissions. The single legal question is the enforceability of the option agreement of September 29, 1966. Here again agreement was reached by the clear and unequivocal language of the stipulation that the issue was a very narrow one, depending entirely upon whether the option was void, at the time Gholson acquired title to the farm, for absence of any signature of an authorized official of Farmers Home Administration. This simply removed from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rahnema v. Rahnema
...trial, especially those "designed to narrow the issues and expedite the trial or settlement of litigation," McLaughlin v. Gholson, 210 Va. 498, 500, 171 S.E.2d 816, 817 (1970), without the risk of such reliance being undermined later. Once a stipulation is made, "there can be no objection t......
-
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B
...trial, especially those "designed to narrow the issues and expedite the trial or settlement of litigation," McLaughlin v. Gholson, 210 Va. 498, 500, 171 S.E.2d 816, 817 (1970), without the risk of such reliance being undermined later. Rahnema v. Rahnema, 47 Va. App. 645, 658, 626 S.E.2d 448......
-
McDonald v. National Enterprises, Inc.
..."A litigant cannot assume positions which are inconsistent with each other and mutually contradictory." McLaughlin v. Gholson, 210 Va. 498, 501, 171 S.E.2d 816, 818 (1970). Irrespective of McDonald's inconsistency, we do not believe that there was an adjudication in the first action with re......
-
Bajgain v. Bajgain
...stipulations ... which are designed to narrow the issues and expedite the trial or settlement of litigation.” McLaughlin v. Gholson, 210 Va. 498, 500, 171 S.E.2d 816, 817 (1970).6 Here, the parties disagree about the scope of the stipulation they made. Because the stipulation was the subjec......