Ray v. Wooster
| Decision Date | 13 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 43778,No. 2,43778,2 |
| Citation | 270 S.W.2d 743 |
| Parties | J. J. RAY, Appellant, v. Vida S. WOOSTER, and Vida S. Wooster, Executrix of the Estate of A. M. Wooster, Deceased, Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Derwood E. Williams, Troy, Jean Voelkerding, Dutzow, Alvin H. Juergensmeyer, Warrenton, for appellant.
Ralph C. Lashly, Richard M. Stout, Francis R. Stout, St. Louis, for respondents.
This suit was brought by J. J. Ray, as plaintiff, against A. M. Wooster and Vida S. Wooster, husband and wife, as defendants, for specific performance of a contract alleged to have been entered into on April 17, 1951, whereby defendants agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to buy certain real estate consisting of a farm containing 359 acres, more or less, located in Lincoln County and known as 'Oak Hill Farm', together with the cattle and certain farm implements on said farm. The trial court found the issues in favor of defendants, and entered its decree denying the relief prayed. Thereafter, defendant A. M. Wooster died, and Vida S. Wooster, executrix of his estate, was made a party defendant. From the judgment, plaintiff has appealed.
The case was tried upon an amended petition and answer thereto. Said petition, in substance, alleged that on April 17, 1951, an agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of the property in question. The consideration for said sale was alleged to be the sum of $33.600. It was further averred that at said time plaintiff gave to defendants a check for $5,000 as earnest money, to be applied on the purchase price upon consummation of the contract, and that at said time a receipt for same was signed and delivered by defendants to plaintiff, which receipt was as follows:
'April 17, 1951.
'Received of J. J. Ray the sum of $5000 in the form of a check as part payment on my farm known as Oak Hill Farm, including land, buildings, cattle and implements acreage 359 more or less the amount $33,600.00.
'Balance $28,600 payable on delivery title clear of any incumbrances.
'The term all cattle as of this date.
'The sum of $10.00 to be paid to B. F. Simpson for each calf on hand.
'A. M. Wooster
'Mrs. Vida S. Wooster.'
It was then alleged that plaintiff was at all times ready, able and willing to fulfill the terms of said agreement but that defendants had refused to convey said property to him.
It was further alleged that since entering into said agreement defendants had wrongfully disposed of a number of the calves agreed to be sold to plaintiff under said contract, making it impossible for defendants to specifically perform the contract in full with respect to the personal property, and that by reason thereof plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $10,500, the value of the calves sold, and have specific performance with respect to the remainder of said personal property.
The prayer of the petition was for specific performance with respect to said real estate, and said personal property then in possession of defendants, and for the sum of $10,500--the value of the personal property wrongfully sold by defendants. There was also a prayer for general relief.
By their answer, defendants denied the allegations of plaintiff's petition which averred the making of the contract. It was then alleged that the receipt pleaded by plaintiff in his said petition was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. Sections 432.010 and 432.020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.
It was further alleged that defendant A. M. Wooster's health was such as to render him unable at times to comprehend and understand ordinary matters of business, which fact was well known to plaintiff; that on April 17, 1951, said defendant was not mentally capable of transacting business; that plaintiff was at said time requested to leave defendants' premises, for the reason that defendant A. M. Wooster was unable to discuss the matter of the sale of said premises, but that plaintiff refused to leave and continued for four hours to urge defendants to sign said receipt; that plaintiff knew or should have known that defendant A. M. Wooster was senile and not capable physically or mentally of resistance to plaintiff's pressure; and that plaintiff 'fraudulently coerced and intimidated and used undue influence in attempting to secure defendants' signatures to said memorandum receipt.'
The trial court, in a memorandum filed in said cause, held that the description of the premises in the receipt signed by the defendants was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds Section 432.010 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and for that reason the contract was unenforceable. The validity of that ruling is the first point for our consideration.
The record shows that the farm in question consisted of 359 acres and was located about seven miles west of the town of Foley in Lincoln County, Missouri. It was the only farm owned by defendants. There was testimony from which it could be found that the farm was well known in the community as the 'Oak Hill Farm'.
Mr. Robert Lester, a farmer living in the vicinity of defendants' farm, testified that he knew the Oak Hill Farm; that it was located about one mile from his place; that it was owned by Mr. Wooster, and was fenced and well marked. He further testified:
'Q. You can go out and point it out and be within the bounds of it? A. Yes.
'* * *
'Q. Do they have a truck out there? A. They did have a small truck.
'Q. Did they have anything painted on it? A. It had 'Oak Hill Farm' on it.
'* * *
Herbert Davis, a farmer who lived near Briscoe, Missouri, testified:
Sam Shields, a farmer living a mile and one-half south of Brussles, Missouri, testified:
* * *
Ernest Shields, a farmer living about a mile and a half southeast of Snow Hill, testified:
'
'
A. M. Magruder, a farmer 87 years old living seven miles west of Foley, testified that he knew the Oak Hill Farm. He testified:
'* * *
Edward Cannon, a real estate dealer, testified that the farm in question was commonly called the Oak Hill Farm. Mrs. Wooster testified that the farm was known as the Oak Hill Farm, and was the only farm that she and Mr. Wooster owned. Several letters written by defendant A. M. Wooster were introduced in evidence. Each was on stationery which had printed thereon as a part of the letterhead the words, 'Oak Hill Farm, R.F.D. Foley, Mo., Lincoln County.'
Plaintiff was engaged in farming and cattle raising on a farm near Elsberry, Missouri. In October, 1950, he purchased thirteen head of cattle from Mr. Wooster. At the time of this purchase the certificates of registration for the cattle were not delivered to him. Thereafter, on several occasions, plaintiff requested Mr. Wooster to send him said certificates, but to no avail. Finally, on April 17, 1951, plaintiff, in a further effort to secure the certificates, made an appointment to meet Mr. Wooster at the latter's home in St. Louis. The appointment was made for 1:30 p. m., and plaintiff arrived at the apartment where defendants lived shortly after 1:00 o'clock. He was accompanied by Mr. William H. Schoene who had agreed to assist plaintiff in securing the registration papers from Mr. Wooster. For the first twenty minutes the parties discussed the matter at hand, that is, the registration of plaintiff's cattle. Thereafter, something was said about defendants' farm being for sale. Plaintiff's testimony with reference to the negotiations is as follows:
'I asked Mr. Wooster if he would sell the farm and he said he would but that the cattle would have to go with the farm. * * * He told me that the price was $35,000, and then we discussed the matter of carrying paper back on it. He said it would have to be cash, and I thought about the proposition a little while and finally countered with an offer of $32,500, and at that time Mr. Wooster left the room, * * * and presently he came back and agreed to the sale of the farm, but told me that I would have to take his farm, his tractor, and his tractor equipment, and I asked him----
'Mr. Juergensmeyer: Q. That $32,500 covered the farm and the cattle? A. The farm and the cattle, yes, sir; and then I asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bunting v. McDonnell Aircraft Corp.
...law contains considerable discussion about what is a necessary and indispensable party, but two examples should suffice. In Ray v. Wooster, 270 S.W.2d 743 (Mo.1954), l.c. 753, the court announced the rule to be that: '(i)n an action on a contract by one of the parties thereto, the only part......
-
Skelly Oil Co. v. Ashmore
...in the pleadings to its nonjoinder and the fact does not now invalidate any judgment entered or to be entered in this cause (Ray v. Wooster, Mo., 270 S.W.2d 743, 753 [18, The contract of sale here involved contained no provision as to who assumed the risk of loss occasioned by a destruction......
-
Macy v. Day
...check and defendant's receipt therefor or that those writings should be the only evidence of their understanding. Contract Ray v. Wooster, Mo., 270 S.W.2d 743, 752-753. However, it was several days after July 16 before a written contract was prepared by defendant's attorney; and, when that ......
-
Peet v. Randolph
...of real property are the parties, the subject matter, the price, the consideration, and the promises upon both sides. Ray v. Wooster, 270 S.W.2d 743, 752 (Mo. 1952). The subject matter (i.e., the property to be conveyed) is the most "essential part" of a contract for the sale of realty. Hut......