Richardson v. Hardwick

Decision Date27 November 1882
Citation106 U.S. 252,27 L.Ed. 145,1 S.Ct. 213
PartiesRICHARDSON v. HARDWICK
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

D. C. Holbrook and H. H. Wells, for appellant.

Alfred Russell and H. M. Campbell, for appellee.

WOODS, J.

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:

'The above-described lands have been purchased by me under an arrangement with Arthur R. Richardson, as follows: It is understood that said Richardson may become equally interested in the above lands by paying to me one-half the purchase price of the lands, together with an equal share of all expenditures made by me for taxes or any other purpose, and also 10 per cent. interest on all capital furnished by me in connection with his half interest. It is further understood that the purchase price of the lands bought of T. II. Eaton is to be reckoned at $10 per acre, and the terms of the above agreement are limited to two years from this date. Said Richardson is to pay one-half his share in one year, and the balance in two years.

'Alpena, October, 1, 1868.

'Arthur R. Richardson may cut timber on the within-described lands on the following terms: He is to pay ($1.50) one dollar and a half per thousand feet, board measure, for all timber cut by him, and he further agrees to cut not less than twelve (12) thousand feet from each and every acre on which he may cut any, or in the event of his not doing so he agrees to pay for twelve thousand feet, the same as though that amount had been cut by him. The logs are to be holden for the stumpage and to be his when paid for, it being understood that payment is to be made for the same when they come into market.

'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
117 cases
  • Brown v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1916
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1905
  • Brown v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1916
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 17, 1904
    ... ... 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; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT