Peterson v. Chase
Decision Date | 23 September 1902 |
Citation | 115 Wis. 239,91 N.W. 687 |
Parties | PETERSON v. CHASE. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; A. J. Vinje, Judge.
Action by John M. Peterson against Joseph E. Chase. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
In and prior to the year 1891, the plaintiff was the owner of a considerable tract of land in Douglas county, Wis. Upon a certain 10 acres thereof adjoining the line of the Northern Pacific Railroad, plaintiff, together with Henry Oberg, as copartners, owned a sawmill and blacksmith shop, lumber yard, lumber, and tools. In December, 1891, the plaintiff sold said 10 acres, and he and Oberg sold the various structures and personal property thereon, above described, to the defendant, for the sum of $2,000 in money and an agreement by defendant to reconvey said land to the plaintiff for the sum of $200 when said defendant should cease to use the same for sawmill purposes and should conclude to sell the same, the plaintiff not agreeing to purchase. In pursuance of that agreement the real estate was deeded to defendant by the plaintiff and wife, and the other property was conveyed by bill of sale by Peterson and Oberg. In July, 1900, the defendant concluded to sell the said premises, and offered them for sale to others, but did not make any offer in accordance with said agreement to sell them to the plaintiff at $200. On or about September 7, 1900, the plaintiff tendered to defendant the sum of $200, and demanded a deed of the said 10 acres, which the defendant refused to make. This action was brought to compel specific performance of the agreement to reconvey for $200. It appeared and was found by the trial court that said real estate was of the value of $200 in 1891, when conveyed to the defendant, but was worth $300 at the time of the trial; also that the defendant, about one year after his purchase, erected divers structures upon the land of the value of $1,200, which still remained there. The plaintiff made and filed in court a written offer to allow the defendant to elect whether he would remove those structures from the land, or would receive therefor the sum of $400, in addition to the $200, as price of the land. He filed an election to accept the $400 in money rather than the privilege of removing the structures. Thereupon the court adjudged the plaintiff entitled to conveyance in fee simple of the 10 acres, with the structures thereon, upon payment of $600, with provision in the judgment that, in the event of defendant's inability to procure his wife's signature to conveyance, deduction should be made, according to rule 32 of circuit court rules, for the value of her interest, and that, in the event of refusal by defendant to convey a complete title, plaintiff should have the option to have his damages ascertained by reference and recover the same; from which judgment the defendant brings this appeal.D. E. Roberts, for appellant.
George B. Hudnal, for respondent.
DODGE, J. (after stating the facts).
The principal objection urged by appellant is that the contract was not mutual, and will therefore not be specifically enforced. To this conclusion, as a general rule, many authorities can be cited, but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simmons Co. v. Crew, 3981.
...103 N.Y. 414, 422, 9 N.E. 41; Heald v. Marden, Orth & Hastings Co., 233 N.Y. 575, 135 N.E. 924, decided April 18, 1922; Peterson v. Chase, 115 Wis. 239, 91 N.W. 687; Stone, The Mutuality Rule in New York, 16 Columbia Law Review, 443; 3 Williston, Contracts, §§ 1433, 1436, 1440, and cases th......
-
Bratt v. Peterson
...also 55 Am.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, p. 496, sec. 28.3 Mueller v. Nortmann (1903), 116 Wis. 468, 470, 93 N.W. 538; Peterson v. Chase (1902), 115 Wis. 239, 241, 91 N.W. 687; 55 Am.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, p. 501, sec. 31.4 Nelson v. Stephens (1900), 107 Wis. 136, 82 N.W. 163; 55 Am.Jur.......
-
Arnold v. Nat'l Bank of Waupaca
...contract. Hooker v. Hyde, 61 Wis. 204, 21 N. W. 52;Superior Consolidated Land Co. v. Bickford, 93 Wis. 220, 67 N. W. 45;Peterson v. Chase, 115 Wis. 239, 91 N. W. 687;Taylor v. Bannerman, 120 Wis. 189, 97 N. W. 918. The evidence is also undisputed that the plaintiffs did, within the four mon......
-
Day v. Egertsen
...546;Gilman v. Brown, 115 Wis. 1, 91 N. W. 227;Standard Mfg. Co. v. Slot, 121 Wis. 14, 98 N. W. 923, 105 Am. St. Rep. 1016;Peterson v. Chase, 115 Wis. 239, 91 N. W. 687;Shawano v. Cayouette, 134 Wis. 31, 114 N. W. 93;My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N. W. 540.Kirwan & Michaelso......