Ragsdale v. Mays

• Decision Date: 12 January 1885
• Docket Number: Case No. 2092
• Citation: Ragsdale v. Mays, 65 Tex. 255 (Tex. 1885)
• Parties: S. P. RAGSDALE v. MARY MAYS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

65 Tex. 255

S. P. RAGSDALE

v.MARY MAYS.

Case No. 2092

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1885.

APPEAL from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. H. Tiechmueller.

Mrs. S. P. Ragsdale brought this suit in the district court of Fayette county, Texas, against Mary Mays, to compel specific performance of a certain contract, in writing, executed by the latter to the former, for the sale of lands lying in Lavaca and Uvalde counties.

Plaintiff, in her amended original petition, filed May 13, 1885, alleges, in substance, that the defendant, on July 17, 1884, in consideration of $500, $10.00 of which was ready money, agreed, in writing, to sell to plaintiff defendant's interest in certain lands in Lavaca and Uvalde counties, Texas, fully describing in the petition the lands, and setting forth the defendant's interest therein. Plaintiff alleges that she several times endeavored to procure from the defendant a conveyance of the latter's interest in the lands, in pursuance of her contract, and, on January 2, 1885, caused to be prepared a deed therefor, in accordance with the agreement, and presented it to the defendant for her signature and acknowledgment, at the same time offering her the balance of the purchase money if she would execute and acknowledge the same; but that the defendant refused to execute the deed, and had wholly neglected and failed to comply with her contract, though often requested.

Plaintiff avers her willingness and her ability to comply with her part of the contract, and prays for decree against defendant for specific performance thereof, for costs, and for general relief. The contract is set forth in the petition, in the following words:

“This July 17, I, Molly Mays, this day bargain and sell to Mrs. S. P. Ragsdale my interest in my lands in Lavaca county and also that in Uvalde county, for the sum of $500, for which I this day received $10.00, the balance to be paid on the making of the deed, or part of the money and the balance in notes at ten per cent. interest.

+---------------------+
                ¦(Signed)¦MARY MAYS.” ¦
                +---------------------+
                

On May 14, 1885, defendant answered by demurrer, specially assigning the ground thereof, and also by general denial and special pleas. The ground of demurrer assigned was, that the instrument set out as the foundation of the suit is so informal and so vague and indefinite as to the land to be conveyed, that the same could not be enforced as a contract for the sale of land, and to explain the same by parol evidence would be against the statute of frauds. On the hearing, the court sustained the defendant's demurrer and dismissed the suit; to which ruling plaintiff excepted, and prosecuted this appeal, assigning the following error:

“The court erred in sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's amended original petition, and in adjudging that plaintiff take nothing by her suit, but pay all costs.”

Phelps & Lane, for appellant, on the proposition that a written agreement for the sale of land, when it contains the essential terms of a contract, expressed with such certainty that the...