Ross v. Baker

• Decision Date: 06 January 1873
• Citation: 72 Pa. 186
• Parties: Ross <I>et al. versus</I> Baker.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

72 Pa. 186

Ross et al. versus Baker.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 22, 1872.

January 6, 1873.

October 22d 1872.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, J.J.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: of October and November Term 1871, No. 117 D. C. McCoy and F. B. Guthrie, for plaintiffs in error.—If inquiry be a duty, whatever puts a party on inquiry amounts to notice: Maul v. Rider, 9 P. F. Smith 167. No particular form of words is necessary for a contract for the sale of land: Colt v. Selden, 5 Watts 525; Lowry v. Mehaffy, 10 Id. 387; McFarson's Appeal, 1 Jones 503. A receipt showing the terms of the bargain is enough: Shofshall v. Adams, 2 Grant 209.

H. L. Richmond (with whom were M. P. Davis and S. N. Pettis), for defendant in error.—The notice must be given by a person interested in the property, and in the course of the treaty for the purchase: Sug. on Vend. 276. It must be by direct information from a person who has an interest in the estate, or who may be affected by the purchase; Churcher v. Guernsey, 3 Wright 84; Jaques v. Weeks, 7 Watts 261; Kerns v. Swope, 2 Id. 75; Wildgoose v. Wayland, Goldsb. 147.

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 6th 1873, by READ, J.

On the 14th of February 1865, James Martin conveyed the land in dispute to Horace R. Stout. This purchase was made at the instance of John Shaw, who was acting as the agent of Ira Canfield and Isaac Canfield his son. The Canfields furnished the money to pay for the land, and Stout conveyed the land to Ira Canfield on the 22d of March 1865. Whilst the Canfields were the owners of the equitable title, the plaintiffs on the 2d of March 1865, with the exception of Ellison, who paid on the 14th of March, paid the Canfields for the land $8000, by which the whole equitable title became vested in the plaintiffs, Sobieski Ross having acquired an interest in the land, by an assignment from Jones of a part of his interest.

On the 1st of September 1865, Ira Canfield conveyed the land to the plaintiffs, by deed, which was recorded January 4th 1866.

There was no dispute between the Canfields and the purchasers, that the latter became the owners of the equitable title to the land in controversy, in the month of March 1865, and five receipts for the purchase-money were produced in evidence on the trial of the cause. Three of the receipts, embracing eight-sixteenths, were in the following form, varying only in the name of the purchaser, the amount of purchase-money and interest: —

"Received from D. C. Larrabee, five hundred dollars, for one-sixteenth full interest in the Fleming farm on French creek.

                   Titusville, March 2d 1865.       IRA CANFIELD & SON."
                

One receipt, was "Received, Titusville, March 2d 1865, from A. F. Jones, three thousand dollars for six-sixteenths interest in the Fleming farm of 50 acres on French creek.

                   (Stamp 10 cents.)                IRA CANFIELD & SON."
                

The fifth receipt was in these words: "Received, Titusville, March 14th 1865, of O. F. Ellison, one thousand dollars, for one-eighth in fee in fifty acres on French creek, said land deeded to Ira Canfield & Son, and they hold the same in trust for the said O. F. Ellison, and are to deed the said one-eighth to him at his demand and option.

                                                       IRA CANFIELD & SON."
                

On the trial the learned judge said: "Whether the receipts of Canfields to plaintiffs are sufficient to pass any title as of their date, we leave as a point of law for future consideration."

The reserved point was, "Are the receipts of Canfield & Son to the plaintiffs, dated 2d and 14th of March 1865, and given in evidence (pro ut receipts), sufficient to convey to the several plaintiffs the equitable title to this land as of their dates." The court said, "We think not. They describe no land by either adjoining, township or county, and there is no evidence that the land was known as the Fleming farm, the last receipt (to Ellison) is still more indefinite, therefore judgment for the defendant on the reserved point." Was the learned judge right? In Evans v. Prothero, 21 Law J. N. S. Chanc. 772, s. c. 13 Eng. L. & Eq. Rep. 163, where the documents had been rejected by Baron Parke on the trial of an issue from the Court of Chancery, for want of a sufficient stamp, the receipt was in these words: —

"Received, this 25th day of August 1827, of Mr. Jenkyn Richards, now and before the sum of 21l., being the amount of the purchase for three tenements sold by me adjoining the river Taff. Received the contents.

                  Witness, JOHN SWAINE.                   EVAN RICHARDS."
                

The jury found notwithstanding in favor of the plaintiff on both issues. A motion was then made before Knight Bruce, V. C., for a new trial of the issues, and was refused. The defendants appealed from that order and the Lord Chancellor (Lord St. Leonards) said: —

"This document, if receivable in evidence, would have proved the plaintiffs' case undoubtedly. I am strongly of opinion that this document was admissible as evidence of the agreement, for on the face of it, it has every ingredient necessary to constitute a valid agreement within the Statute of Frauds. It contains the names of the seller and buyer, a description of the property sold, and the amount of the purchase-money. If I were to direct a new trial, I should not exclude this document, holding the opinion I have expressed that it is admissible as evidence of the agreement. I am perfectly satisfied that, in refusing this motion, I am not only saving the parties from ruinous litigation, but am furthering the ends of justice on the merits."

This case had been three times tried, Justice Wightman and Baron Parke rejecting the document, and Baron Platt admitting it, and it was heard by V. C. Wigram, Lord Cottenham, Knight Bruce, and finally decided by Lord St. Leonards, and is incorporated by him in the thirteenth edition of his learned treatise on the Law of Vendors and Purchasers, pp. 105 and 461, as settled law.

In the case before us the receipts contain the names of the seller and buyer, a description of the property, and the amount of the purchase-money and its payment. The Fleming farm is identified by Isaac Canfield, and the locality on French creek is quite as certain as adjoining the river Taff. There was, therefore, error in the decision of the court on the reserved point.

On the 31st July 1865, A. P. Funk obtained a judgment against Ira and Isaac Canfield for $499.62,...