Nickerson v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 10 January 1914
• Citation: Nickerson v. Bridges, 216 Mass. 416, 103 N.E. 939 (Mass. 1914)
• Parties: NICKERSON v. BRIDGES et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

216 Mass. 416

103 N.E. 939

NICKERSON v. BRIDGES et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

January 10, 1914

Jan 10, 1914.

COUNSEL

R. J Lane and E. A. Thompson, both of Boston, for appellants.

H. F. R. Dolan and J. H. Morson, both of Boston, for appellee.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

The plaintiff asks for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of the real property described in the bill, and after a decree in his favor the case is here on the defendants' appeal, with a report of the evidence taken by a commissioner. If not shown to be clearly erroneous the findings of fact by the trial judge will not be reversed, and the first question is whether an enforceable contract was consummated.

The preliminary verbal negotiations instituted by the plaintiff, a resident of this jurisdiction, took place at the home of the defendants in another state, where as the judge could find a definite oral proposition to buy the land at an agreed price was finally made, and held for consideration by the vendors with the request that upon his return he would reduce the offer to writing and transmit it. The letter sent in his behalf by the firm of brokers, whose names he had given to the defendants, and one of whom had accompanied him, and was present at the interview, embodied the terms previously discussed, and which the parties seem to have understood as being satisfactory if a bargain was struck. It refers to the conversation, names the price, describes the land with the estimated area, and closes by requesting that the defendants 'forward their formal acceptance at once in order that the necessary papers may be prepared.' The letter is not a final proposition of purchase. It is a statement of the oral agreement as requested. The letter in reply accepts the offer at the price named, with a description of the property, and also inclosed a letter to the plaintiff referring to some ancient deeds where certain rights of way of which he had spoken were mentioned. The purpose of this correspondence, and the intention of the parties, were questions of fact. The judge's conclusion that the defendants' reply to the brokers was an acceptance of the oral bargain, with its terms of sale, is in accordance with the view which he properly could take of the testimony, in the light of which the correspondence must be read.

It is urged by the defendants that, if this is the true interpretation, the oral offer was too indefinite and uncertain to form the basis of a contract for the sale of real property, and there is no sufficient memorandum to satisfy the provisions of R. L. c. 74, § 1, cls. 4, 5. But the land had been identified by a sufficient description, the price agreed upon, and the direct trend of all the evidence shows it was to be paid upon delivery of the deed. If at the interview the oral agreement had been put in writing and signed, the contract would have been binding on the parties. Sanborn v. Flagler, 9 Allen, 474; Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545, 96 Am. Dec. 671; Gowen v. Klous, 101 Mass. 449, 454; Mead v. Parker, 115 Mass. 413, 15 Am. Rep. 110. A reasonable time would have been understood if the memorandum had failed to fix the period of fulfillment. By their subsequent dealings they became bound as effectually. Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. 227, 26 Am. Dec. 657. The letters, even if writ ten after the plaintiff returned home, all related to the oral contract, and may be used unitedly to form a sufficient memorandum under the statute. Nickerson v. Weld, 204 Mass. 346, 90 N.E. 589, and cases cited.

The assent of the parties being certain, and the contract as finally expressed within its requirements, the subsequent telegram and letter of the defendants declining performance, and asking to be released, did not abrogate the plaintiff's right to the full benefit of the agreement either in equity for specific performance, or by an action at law for damages. O'Brien v. Boland, 166 Mass. 481, 483, 44 N.E....