Richardson v. Hardwick
Decision Date | 27 November 1882 |
Citation | 106 U.S. 252,27 L.Ed. 145,1 S.Ct. 213 |
Parties | RICHARDSON v. HARDWICK |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
D. C. Holbrook and H. H. Wells, for appellant.
Alfred Russell and H. M. Campbell, for appellee.
This was a bill in equity filed by Richardson, the appellant, to compel the specific performance of a contract relating to lands between him and Hardwick, the appellee.
The contract opened with a description of the lands to which it related, and then proceeded as follows:
'Alpena, October, 1, 1868.
'B. C. HARDWICK,
'ARTHUR R. RICHARDSON.
'Alpena, October 1, '68.'
It is not disputed that before the date of this contract, Hardwick, the appellee, had purchased the lands described therein, had paid for them in full out of his own means, and had received a deed therefor in his own name. Prior to Cotober 1, 1870, the date at which the two years mentioned in the contract expired, Richardson had cut timber on the lands on the terms mentioned in the contract, and had paid to Hardwick for 'stumpage' $4,050, and, unless this was to be considered a payment on the contract, he, up to the date mentioned, had made no payment whatever thereon. On or just before October 1, 1870, by a verbal contract between Richardson and Hardwick, the time for the payment by Richardson of the half of the price of the lands was extended to October 1, 1871. But up to that time he made no payment on the lands, and never made any payment at any subsequent time, and never tendered any. In the mean time Hardwick was selling timber off the lands to other parties, and in the year 1872 sold all the lands themselves except 160 acres. The contention of Richardson now is that, after crediting upon the contract one-half the amount received by Hardwick for timber sold and for lands sold, the half of the purchase money and other expenses, which he was to pay in case he became equally interested in the lands, has been satisfied, and that he is entitled to share equally in the proceeds of the timber and lands, and is entitled to a conveyance of an undivided half of the lands remaining unsold. But it was not until May or June, 1874, that Richardson ever intimated to Hardwick that he claimed an interest in the lands, and his claim was then peremptorily denied by Hardwick, and it was not until he filed the bill in this case December 10, 1875, that Richardson ever made any definite demand on Hardwick for an account of the proceeds of the sales of timber and lands, or for a conveyance of the undivided half of the lands remaining unsold....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Wilson
... ... to you. 'An option must be exercised within the time ... limit, or the right will be lost.' 21 A. & E. E. 931; ... Richardson v. Hardwick, 106 U.S. 252, 1 S.Ct. 213, ... 27 L.Ed. 145; Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 19 S.W ... 527, 21 L. R. A. 129; Waterman v. Banks, 144 ... ...
- Greenwich Insurance Company v. State
-
Brown v. Wilson
...to you. 'An option must be exercised within the time limit, or the right will be lost.' 21 A. & E. E. 931; Richardson v. Hardwick, 106 U.S. 252, 1 S. Ct. 213, 27 L. Ed. 145; Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 19 S.W. 527, 21 L.R.A. 129; Waterman v. Banks, 144 U.S. 394, 12 S. Ct. 646, 36 L. Ed. 4......
-
Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.
... ... this rule was applied as to parol evidence of a verbal ... agreement: Richardson v. Hardwick, 106 U.S. 252, 1 ... Sup.Ct. 213, 27 L.Ed. 145; Seitz v. Brewers' M ... Co., 141 U.S. 510, 12 Sup.Ct. 46, 35 L.Ed. 837; ... ...