Riley v. Haworth

• Decision Date: 16 October 1902
• Parties: RILEY v. HAWORTH et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

30 Ind.App. 377

64 N.E. 928

RILEY

v.HAWORTH et al.^*

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Oct. 16, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county; James V. Kent, Judge.

Action by W. Grant Riley against Warner A. Haworth and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

P. H. Dutch and Claybaugh & Claybaugh, for appellant. S. M. Ralston, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J.

Action for damages for alleged breach of a contract to convey land. Complaint in three paragraphs, to which demurrers were sustained. The first paragraph avers that on the 9th day of May, 1900, and prior thereto, appellant, a farmer, was engaged in breeding and raising hogs and cattle, and had expended large sums of money in the purchase of the best stock; that he had purchased a farm convenient to his home farm, upon which he resided, that was peculiarly adapted to the breeding and raising of such stock; that he had prepared the farm with suitable buildings and fences, and on that date had on the farm a large amount of stock; that this stock farm was the only land he owned suitable for raising stock; that appellee owned and was in possession of certain land particularly described, suited to raising stock, which land, aside from that of the appellant, was the only land suited to that purpose accessible to appellant's residence, which appellee knew; that appellant desired to purchase appellee's land, but to procure the money it would be necessary for appellant to sell his stock farm, of which fact he informed appellee; that appellee knew appellant was unable financially to purchase appellee's farm unless he could sell his own stock farm; that “at the said time Haworth, with the full knowledge of all the conditions of the plaintiff and plaintiff's property, and plaintiff's financial ability and business, as hereinbefore alleged, solicited and requested plaintiff to sell his said farm hereinbefore mentioned, and, to induce plaintiff to sell his said farm, promised and agreed with plaintiff that, in consideration that he would sell said farm herein mentioned, that said Haworth would sell and convey to plaintiff the said land belonging to said Haworth, hereinbefore described, for the sum of $5,135,-$50 cash on said day, and the balance of said purchase price by the 1st day of May, 1900, upon the further promise and conditions hereinafter alleged; that at the instance and request of Haworth this plaintiff, relying upon the said promise of the said Haworth that he would sell and convey by deed to plaintiff his said farm, hereinbefore described, did, at the instance and request of said Haworth, enter into the following agreement with Haworth, which stipulated and provided that this plaintiff should sell and convey his said farm, first herein described, which he had purchased and fitted up as herein alleged, and pay said Haworth the purchase price therefor; that in consideration that said plaintiff would sell and convey his said farm, first herein described, and pay to said Haworth the money realized therefor, that said Haworth would sell and convey his said farm, hereinbefore described, to plaintiff, upon the following terms and conditions, to wit: That plaintiff pay said Haworth for his said farm $5,135,- $50 cash in hand, the purchase price of plaintiff's said farm, and the balance of said purchase price (in all, $5,135) by the first day of May, 1900”; Haworth to have the growing wheat on his farm, and use the garden and dwelling house until the wheat was harvested, and the right to pasture stock on the farm until the same would be disposed of; Haworth to convey his farm by deed to appellant in a few days; appellant to assume a contract with an employé on the farm, and to have immediate possession of all the farm, except the portions above reserved, the right to turn his stock upon the farm, and enter thereon to seed the same, except the portions reserved,-“all of which terms and conditions were agreed to by and between plaintiff and Haworth.” It is further averred that appellant relied upon such agreement and promises, and, at Haworth's request, sold his stock farm, and while standing upon Haworth's farm on April 10, 1900, paid to him the $50 as agreed, at which time Haworth delivered the possession to appellant, except the reservations; that appellant then took possession by asserting his ownership in the presence of Haworth, “who fully confirmed, ratified, and approved and consented to the transfer,” except the reservations; that appellant immediately commenced preparations to seed the same and to remove his stock thereto; that, in pursuance of his agreement, appellant sold his stock farm, and conveyed the same by warranty deed, “with the purpose of raising money to pay said Haworth for his said farm”; that after the payment of $50, and after Haworth had delivered his farm to appellant according to the agreement, Haworth “wholly ignored and repudiated his said agreement to convey his said farm by deed or otherwise to this plaintiff, though requested so to do by plaintiff,” and has forbidden appellant to enter upon the land or to move his stock thereto, has repudiated the sale and his agreement, and refused to carry out the same; that appellant unsuccessfully tendered the balance of the purchase money within the time stipulated, demanded a deed, which was refused, and is ready and willing to comply with the terms of the agreement in all respects; that, before suit, appellant demanded a deed; that appellant has been compelled to dispose of part of his stock at a great sacrifice by reason of having sold his stock farm, and by reason of appellee's refusal to permit appellant to place his stock upon the land appellee sold and agreed to convey; that, by reason of appellee's wrongful conduct in repudiating his contract, appellant has no suitable place to carry on his business of stock raising, and has been and will be unable to continue such business, and appellee has failed and refused to refund the $50, and failed to reimburse appellant for certain designated losses he has sustained through the wrongful conduct of appellee in procuring appellant to sell his land, and in refusing to convey his farm to appellant. The prayer of the complaint is a judgment for the sum of $50, money had and received, and $2,000 damages.

The three paragraphs of complaint are substantially the same, and considering them, as we must, upon the theory upon which they were manifestly drawn, they present the same question. Appellant's right to recover back the purchase money paid is not presented,...