Real Estate Management, Inc. v. Giles
| Decision Date | 09 May 1956 |
| Citation | 293 S.W.2d 596,41 Tenn.App. 347 |
| Parties | REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, Inc., v. Margaret GILES et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Folts, Brammer, Bishop & Thomas and Milton D. McClure, Chattanooga, for appellant.
Wilkerson & Meacham, Chattanooga, for appellee.
The original bill herein was filed by the complainant, Real Estate Management, Inc., against the defendants, Margaret Giles and C. E. Freeman, as a bill of interpleader to determine which of the defendants was entitled to the sum of $1,000 held by the complainant as an earnest money deposit on a contract signed by defendant Freeman to purchase a tract of land owned by the defendant Giles. The bill prayed that the defendants be required to establish their rights to the deposit made under the terms of the agreement to purchase said land.
By agreed decree the bill was sustained, and the defendants were required to interplead and to establish their claim to the $1,000.
The controversy between the defendants arose out of the offers made by Freeman to purchase three contiguous tracts of land which he wanted to acquire for business purposes. The largest of these tracts was owned by Margaret Giles, and the two smaller tracts were owned by Paul Dubrow and Dr. N. B. Callier, said tracts being described as follows:
Giles Tract:
'West 149' of Lot No. 21, Blk. 4, Vaughn's Addition, and the West 149' of the North 50' of Lot No. 22, Blk. 4, Vaughn's Addition, and the East 106' of the North 75' of Lot No. 21, Blk. 4, Vaughn's Addition'.
Dubrow Tract:
'South 25' of the East 106' of Lot 21, Blk. 4, Vaughn's Addition, and the North 50' of the East 106' of Lot 22, Blk. 4, Vaughn's Addition'.
Dr. Callier Tract:
'South 50' of Lot No. 22, Blk. 4, Vaughn's Addition'.
The offers were made after Freeman contacted J. H. Persinger, a real estate agent with Real Estate Management, Inc., with the suggestion that the agent make inquiry of the owners as to whether the three tracts could be purchased. In order to get the plan into definite shape, the agent prepared three separate offers which were signed by Freeman, who deposited with the agent as earnest money $1,000 on the Giles offer, and $250 each on the other two offers. The Giles offer was addressed to the Chattanooga Realty Company, Agents, and the other two offers were addressed to Paul Dubrow and Dr. N. B. Callier, respectively, and each offer not only specified the amount Freeman was willing to pay for each tract, as will hereafter appear, but each offer also contained the following conditions:
Offer to Giles: $31,250.
'The following provisions and stipulations are a part of this offer: Is contingent upon buyer's being able to purchase' (Dubrow and Callier properties described above).
Offer to Dubrow: $5,500.
(Callier and Giles properties described above).
Offer to Dr. Callier: $6,500.
(Dubrow and Giles properties described above)
Each of the above offers was made on printed forms of the Real Estate Management, Inc., and contained acceptance provisions whereby the owner (1) agreed to pay a percentage commission upon the sale price, and (2) agreed to a division of the forfeited earnest money in the event the purchaser failed to complete the transaction.
The offer to Miss Giles was signed by Freeman sometime in January, 1954, and was accepted by her on February 8th, on which date she also executed a deed conveying the property to Freeman who, for reasons hereinafter appearing, declined to complete the transaction. The offers to Dubrow and Dr. Callier were both signed by Freeman on February 23, 1954, and later when submitted Dr. Callier rejected the $6,500 offer and made a counter offer of $9,500, which was rejected by Freeman. Thereafter, the offer to Dubrow who had previously listed his tract for sale with the Chattanooga Realty Company for $8,500, was never submitted to him, and the two $250 deposits were subsequently returned by Real Estate Management, Inc., to Freeman. As to the $1,000, both Miss Giles and Freeman made demand upon Real Estate Management, Inc., therefor, and being unable to determine who was entitled thereto, said Company filed this bill of interpleader,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roger Miller Music v. Sony/Atv Publishing
...construed together. Oman Constr. Co. v. Tennessee Cent. Ry. Co., 212 Tenn. 556, 370 S.W.2d 563, 570 (1963); Real Estate Mgmt. v. Giles, 41 Tenn.App. 347, 293 S.W.2d 596, 599 (1956) ("[W]here several instruments are made as part of one transaction, they will be read together and each will be......
-
Levinson v. Linderman, 33974
...108 Neb. 778, 189 N.W. 169; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. American Surety Co., 66 Ga.App. 805, 19 S.E.2d 357; Real Estate Management, Inc. v. Giles, Tenn.App., 293 S.W.2d 596; International Milling Co. v. Hachmeister, Inc., 380 Pa. 407, 110 A.2d 186; Neville v. Scott, 182 Pa.Super. Ct. 448,......
-
Keller v. West-Morr Investors, Ltd.
...Ann.Cas. 1097 [ (1909) ]; Reed v. Lewis, 74 Ind. 433, 39 Am.Rep. 88 [ (1881) ]. Id. at 556. In the case of Real Estate Management v. Giles, 41 Tenn.App. 347, 293 S.W.2d 596 (1956), in addressing the construction of contracts in this jurisdiction, this court said: Generally, in construing co......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. City of White House, Tenn.
...only to the language of the instrument, but must ascertain, if possible, the intention of the parties. Real Estate Management, Inc. v. Giles, 41 Tenn.App. 347, 293 S.W.2d 596, 599 (1956). For an agreement to be enforced as a contract, there must be mutual assent; one party must accept the o......