Roberson v. Gordon

• Decision Date: 07 November 1921
• Docket Number: 3492.
• Parties: ROBERSON v. GORDON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

276 F. 638

ROBERSON v. GORDON et al.

No. 3492.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

November 7, 1921

Submitted October 12, 1921.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Raymond M. Hudson, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

A Coulter Wills, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

SMYTH Chief Justice.

The appellant as plaintiff brought suit against the appellees for the purpose of having set aside certain transactions which he had with them concerning the purchase of a lot and the building of a house. His bill was dismissed for want of equity.

It is not clear upon what he intends to rest his suit. He alleges that the appellee Fulton R. Gordon advertised in one of the local papers that he would 'put up a house for you at about $2,000 less than you can buy it ready built, ready May 1st: $1,000 cash and I'll loan you the rest'; that he answered this advertisement, and after some negotiations with appellee Ruby Lee Minar, who was, he alleges, the agent of Gordon, he entered into a written contract with her whereby he agreed to purchase lot 5 in block 1995, in Chevy Chase Grove, paying $800 cash and giving for the balance sixty $20 monthly notes, and one note payable in five years.

The contract is set out, but there is nothing in it with respect to the building of a house. When he inquired about the building of the house, Gordon told him that he would not build it but would help him raise the necessary money through a building and loan association. Later it developed that neither Gordon nor Minar had title to the lot mentioned in the contract. Gordon proposed to convey to him in place of it lot 5 in square 1996, build a house on it to cost not more than $6,500, save appellant $2,000, and have the house completed on May 1, 1920; and added that if appellant would not take the lot he would lose the $800 which he had deposited. Fearing the loss of the $800, and relying upon the representations which had been made to him, appellant accepted a deed for the last-mentioned lot from John M. Minar and Ruby Lee Minar, and executed and delivered sixty monthly notes of $20 each and one five-year note for $600, payable to Ruby Lee Minar and secured by a trust upon the lot. The deed contains a special warranty.

He charges that Gordon has refused to carry out his agreement with respect to the building of the house and that the lot conveyed to him is incumbered by a trust. It is...