Morris v. Ballard

• Decision Date: 06 December 1926
• Docket Number: No. 4410.,4410.
• Citation: 16 F.2d 175
• Parties: MORRIS et al. v. BALLARD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

16 F.2d 175 (1926)

MORRIS et al. v. BALLARD.

No. 4410.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted October 7, 1926.

Decided December 6, 1926.

R. J. Whiteford and D. L. Morris, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

C. Clinton James and W. W. Millan, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree ordering specific performance of a contract for the sale and conveyance of certain real estate situate within the District of Columbia. The appellee, William T. Ballard, was plaintiff in the lower court, and F. Wm. Ernst, since deceased, whose estate is represented by the appellants, was defendant.

The record discloses that on December 28, 1921, the defendant, being the owner of the property in question, entered into a written contract with the plaintiff, whereby he leased the same to plaintiff for a period of three years, commencing on January 1, 1922, at a rental of $100 per month, stipulating that plaintiff should keep the premises in good repair, and should have the privilege of making alterations or additions to the property at his own expense at any time during the demised term. The contract also contained the following clause giving the plaintiff the right to purchase the property at any time on or before July 1, 1923, to wit:

"It is further provided that the said party of the second part is hereby given the privilege of purchasing said premises on or before July 1, 1923, for the sum of $18,000 on terms to be agreed upon."

The contract was duly signed, acknowledged, and recorded, and the plaintiff took possession of the premises under it, and has continuously occupied the same ever since as his residence and office. He has fully discharged all obligations imposed upon him by the contract, and has made alterations of the property as thereby permitted.

In the month of December, 1922, plaintiff advised defendant that he desired to avail himself of his right to purchase the premises as permitted by the contract. Accordingly be tendered himself as ready, willing, and able to pay the agreed price therefor, either in cash or upon such terms as defendant might impose. And afterwards, to wit, on May 15, 1923, defendant having refused to accept payment in cash or to name any terms of payment as acceptable to him, plaintiff made due tender of the agreed price in cash, less certain undisputed liens then existing upon the property, and demanded a deed of conveyance for the same. Defendant, however, unconditionally refused to accept the tender or make the conveyance, whereupon plaintiff filed his present bill for specific performance of the contract.

In the bill plaintiff repeated his tender to pay for the property in cash, or upon any lawful terms which defendant should prefer. Defendant answered, alleging that the stipulated price for the property was grossly inadequate, and that his signature to the instrument had been obtained by fraud upon the part of the plaintiff. He also denied that any lawful tender had been made to him by plaintiff. He maintained, furthermore, that the provisions requiring that payment of...