Ragan v. Schreffler
| Decision Date | 12 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 46093,No. 1,46093,1 |
| Citation | 306 S.W.2d 494 |
| Parties | Earl M. RAGAN et al., Respondents, v. Glen A. SCHREFFLER et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Russell N. Pickett, Eugene E. Andereck, Phil Hauck, Pickett, Andereck & Hauck, Trenton, for appellants.
R. Leroy Miller, Trenton, for respondents.
VAN OSDOL, Commissioner.
This is an action for specific performance of a contract completed upon the election to accept an option to purchase a described tract of two hundred forty acres of farm land in Mercer County. The option was executed in contemplation of a loan to be insured or made by the United States. The trial court found the issues in favor of plaintiffs, Earl M. and Katherine Ragan, optionees-purchasers; entered a decree requiring defendants, Glen A. and Letha Schreffler, optionors-vendors, to execute a warranty deed conveying the described lands to plaintiffs; and rendered judgment for plaintiffs in an accounting of rentals. Defendants have appealed.
Herein upon appeal, defendants-appellants contend the trial court erred in decreeing specific performance. It is asserted the contract was not supported by a consideration; and did not represent the understanding of the parties.
In the review of this case, an action in equity, it is our duty to consider and weigh the evidence, make our own findings and reach our own conclusions, taking into account, however, the trial chancellor's superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before him.
In this case, in examining the evidence and in determining the parties' contentions, it is necessary to state the circumstances of the execution of a memorandum agreement entered into September 24, 1955, six days prior to execution of the option to purchase, September 30, 1955.
In August, 1955, defendant Glen A. Schreffler advised one Bert Arnote, a realestate broker of Princeton, that defendants desired to sell their farm for $100 per acre. Arnote testified that on September 24, 1955, he accompanied plaintiff Earl M. Ragan to the Schreffler farm and, after some discussion between plaintiff Earl and defendant Glen, in which discussion plaintiff Earl indicated plaintiffs would have to procure a loan to enable them to pay the purchase price, the price of $78 per acre was agreed upon. And Whereupon Arnote 'scribbled' the agreement in longhand. The agreement was signed by defendant Glen and plaintiff Earl, and was as follows,
'This agreement made and entered into this 24 da of Sept by and between Glenn Schressler party of the first part and Earl Ragan party of the second part where by party of the First part sells his farm of 240 acres * * * for ($78.00) seventy eight dollers proacre to second party--second party to secure a Government loan and pay on or before January 1st 1956 time of delivery of clear Deed abstract & possession March 1, 1956.'
As the quoted memorandum agreement shows, the word 'March' was stricken and the word 'January' inserted by interlineation. Apparently the word 'at' was also stricken. There was a conflict in the testimony as to the reason for striking the word 'Marcy' and interlining the word 'January.' It was the testimony of the broker Arnote that the date 'January' 1, 1956, was intended to indicate the date defendants were to be assured that plaintiffs' loan application was approved so that defendants could give their tenant, one Meinke, timely notice of their intention to terminate the tenancy on or before February 28, 1956. The witness Arnote testified,
'Q. Getting back to this agreement * * * you wrote the agreement up, yourself, out to the farm?
'A. I did, all there at the car and I just scribbled that agreement in the car and read it to both of them. Earl says all right and Mr. Schreffler said, 'We will get to give possession the first of March, I want to know about it before the first of the year because of my renter.' So I added that on, both saw me add it on, that he was to be notified the first of the year whether Earl would get the money or not.
But defendant Glen testified, in effect, that the change in date was made with the intention that the purchase price was to be paid in 'ninety days'; although, as the memorandum agreement provided, a deed, abstract and possession were to be delivered March 1st.
Very soon after the execution of the memorandum agreement, plaintiffs made application for a Farmers Home Administration loan, and, as indicated supra, the contract of which the trial court decreed performance was the contract resultant of an election to accept the 'Option for Purchase of Farm with a loan insured or made by the United States of America,' executed by defendants and plaintiffs, by which defendants, the Schrefflers, for the recited consideration of 'One Dollar in hand paid and other valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,' granted to plaintiffs the exclusive option to purchase the described lands for the stated price. The option (executed September 30, 1955, as stated) was irrevocable for a period of three months from the date thereof. The option instrument contained the express provisions that abstract of title was to be delivered 'when required' and that the 'seller' was to provide title insurance. When defendants first learned of the provision relating to title insurance, they refused to execute the option; but, when assured by the broker Arnote that they would be saved the expense of such insurance, defendants signed and acknowledged the option instrument.
The Farmers Home Administration loan to plaintiffs was approved December 8, 1955; and on December 16th plaintiffs mailed notice to defendants of plaintiffs' acceptance of the option. The notice was received by defendants December 28, 1955. There was evidence that, meanwhile and sometime prior to December 17, 1955, the Farmers Home Administration was requiring an abstract of title and that defendants failed to comply with the terms of the option agreement that an abstract of title was to be provided by them when required. The witness Arnote testified that when a request was made of defendant Glen for an abstract of title, he remarked, Thereafter the witness Arnote received a letter dated December 17th, signed by defendant Letha, as follows, 'As we can not get the money on the farm until the 1st of March we have called the sale off, as I have the farm rented until the 1st of March and I will not move them out until the time is out--and if I can't get the money until then that will call my deal off so I am sorry.'
As we have noticed, the memorandum contract of September 24th as interlined provided that a government loan was to be secured by the second party 'any pay on or before January 1, 1956'; and that the time of delivery of a conveyance, abstract of title and possession was March 1, 1956; whereas the option agreement provided for the delivery of an abstract of title 'when required,' possession on March 1, 1956, and payment of purchase price upon the recording of deed.
The trial court found the facts to be that defendants were fully aware of We have the opinion the trial chancellor, having found that defendants fully understood the pertinent provisions of the option to purchase, was correct in finding that the parties must be held to have intended that the agreement of September 24th was modified, merged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLellan v. Charly
...consideration for an option contract, none suggest that the efforts of a person in Bogle's situation might do so. See Ragan v. Schreffler, 306 S.W.2d 494, 498-99 (Mo. 1957) (option was supported by separate consideration in the form of the optionee's efforts to obtain a loan, where there wa......
-
Soars v. Easter Seals Midwest, SC 97018
...contract, "a promise by one party to a contract is a sufficient consideration for a promise by the other party." Ragan v. Schreffler , 306 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Mo. 1957) ; see also Braudis v. Helfrich , 265 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Mo. 1954). This is true as long as the promises are not illusory. Baker......
-
Herhalser v. Herhalser, 8490
...210 Mo.App. 260, 272, 243 S.W. 382, 385(2); Edmund S. Mills Corp. v. Stinebaker, Mo.App., 67 S.W.2d 821, 822(1). See Ragan v. Schreffler, Mo., 306 S.W.2d 494, 499(11). Although the law affords to everyone reasonable protection against fraud, 'it is not an indulgent guardian which can go to ......
-
Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc.
...and pay the purchase price, this itself is a sufficient consideration for the promise of a vendor to sell and convey.Ragan v. Schreffler, 306 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Mo.1957). Thus, it is clear that it is not the price that supplies the necessary consideration but the offeree's promise to pay it.O......