Richards v. Snider

• Decision Date: 07 February 1884
• Citation: 3 P. 177,11 Or. 197
• Parties: RICHARDS v. SNIDER and another.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

3 P. 177

11 Or. 197

RICHARDS v. SNIDER and another.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 7, 1884

Appeal from Umatilla county.

Lucian Everts, for appellant.

L.L McArthur, for respondents.

WATSON C.J.

This is a suit for specific performance. The contract sought to be enforced is in writing, and in the following form:

"This agreement made between D.A. Richards and Wm. A Snider, as a settlement of all matters of difference between them up to this date. Witnesseth, that said Richards is to pay to said Snider the sum of fifty dollars in gold coin, and said Snider is to execute and deliver to said Richards a good and sufficient deed or conveyance of lot 8, sec. 19, 4 N., 35 E., as soon as patent is received from the United States, and said sum of $50 to be then due and payable, or if patent is issued therefor to said Richards, he is to deduct from said $50 whatever is paid to the United States for entrance money, and said Richards to be entitled to immediate possession of said lot 8; and both parties to do and perform every act necessary to carry out this arrangement, and obtain title from the United States.

"D.A RICHARDS,

"W.A. SNIDER.

"Dated March 21, 1873."

After setting out the agreement, the complaint alleges "that the meaning of the words and figures in said agreement, to-wit, lot 8, sec. 19, 4 N., 35 E., is as follows, to-wit, lot 8, in sec. 19, in township 4 north, of range 35 east, Willamette meridian," and that said land is situated in Umatilla county, state of Oregon. It further alleges that appellant received possession of the premises from Snider, under said agreement, and continued in possession thereof until the respondent Crews made a forcible and wrongful entry thereon, on or about August 20, 1882, and that during the time he held possession he made valuable improvements to the amount of $100; that patent issued March 1, 1877, to Snider; that in October, 1882, Snider and his wife made Crews a deed to said premises for the expressed consideration of $1,000; that Crews took said deed with full knowledge of appellant's rights under said agreement; that on October 14, 1882, appellant tendered Snider the amount due upon said contract and demanded a deed for the land, and on the twenty-first day of the same month made a like tender and demand to Crews, but met with a refusal in both instances; and that between the making of such agreement and issuance of the patent, Snider left said county and remained absent therefrom several years after the patent had issued, and had never tendered a deed for the property or requested payment of the money due him under said contract. The respondents demurred generally, and the circuit court sustained the demurrer and rendered a decree dismissing the suit. The appeal is from this decree.

The appellant does not claim there is any mistake in the written agreement. If it is not sufficient in itself, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, alleged in the complaint and admitted by the demurrer, to enable the court to determine the precise tract of land intended to be disposed of,...