Rust v. Eaton

Decision Date01 September 1885
Citation24 F. 830
PartiesRUST and another v. EATON and others.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Rea Kitchel & Shaw, for plaintiffs.

Cross Hicks & Carleton, for defendants.

Gordon E. Cole, of counsel for defendants.

NELSON J., (orally.)

This case is removed from the state court of Hennepin county, and is a suit in equity brought by the complainants to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of certain city lots in Minneapolis, in this district. The contract of sale was executed on behalf of the defendant Franklin Eaton by one Eads, claiming to be his duly authorized agent. The facts are these: In January, 1882, the defendant Franklin Eaton agreed to purchase the property in controversy of his father, David Eaton, of New Hampshire, who owned it, and, by an arrangement at the time, was to receive a quitclaim deed by paying a certain consideration. The deed of sale was executed and retained by David Eaton for delivery to Franklin Eaton when he should fulfill his contract.

David Eaton held the property under a quitclaim deed from Philander Hall, who was the grantee from the assignee in bankruptcy of one John G. Sherburne, of the state of New Hampshire. All the conveyances were recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Hennepin county, in the state of Minnesota, except the deed from David Eaton to Franklin Eaton. Franklin Eaton had been to Minnesota to look after the landed interests of his father, and held a power of attorney which authorized him to take charge of the property, and, under certain circumstances, to convey it. This power of attorney is signed the eighteenth of June, 1877, duly acknowledged the same day and was recorded on the twenty-second day of June, 1877, in the office of the register of deeds, Hennepin county, Minnesota. On January 4, 1882, the following letter was received by the defendant Franklin Eaton from A. D. Eads, who was a stranger to him:

OFFICE OF A. D. EADS, REAL ESTATE AND LOAN BROKER,

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., January 4, 1882.

Franklin Eaton, Wentworth, N.H.-- DEAR SIR: Is the property owned by D. Eaton in this city for sale? If so, please give me price and terms. The lots are 11 and 12, block 33, and all of block 48. Please let me hear from you. Taxes are now due.

Yours, truly, A. D. EADS.

On January 17, 1882, Franklin Eaton writes as follows, in reply to the last letter:

WENTWORTH, N.H., January 17, 1882.

A. D. Eads-- DEAR SIR: Your letter inquiring if block 48, and lots 11 and 12, block 33, were for sale, is received. That depends upon the price the property will sell for. If it will sell for $8,000 it is for sale. If it will not bring more than $4,000 it is not for sale now. If the property will sell so we think it is better to sell than hold it longer, it will be sold at any time. If you have a purchaser you can inform me what it can be sold for, and I will consider the sum and answer you any time.

Respectfully yours, FRANKLIN EATON.

P.S. Your card received for future reference. If you desire to correspond further as to the property, will consider any communication, and answer.

Eads writes as follows, January 24, 1882:

Franklin Eaton, Wentworth, N.H.-- DEAR SIR: Yours of the seventeenth inst. is received, and I have endeavored to get an offer on your lots. I can make sale of lots 11 and 12, block 33, and all block 48, for $5,000; one-third cash in hand, and the remainder secured by first mortgage on the property, payable on or before three years, with 8 per cent. interest, payable semi-annually. If these terms suit, you can authorize me to close the sale. The party will want an abstract of title. He wants to know by return mail, as I have offered him a nice block a little further out for considerable less money, and which he will take if you and he cannot trade. My fees on sale are 5 per cent. on the first $1,000, and 2 1/2 per cent. on the remainder. This is the regular commission.

Hoping to hear from you soon, I am

Yours, truly, A. D. EADS.

P.S. Taxes are now due.

In answer to this letter Eaton writes thus:

WENTWORTH, N.H., February 1, 1882.

A. D. Eads, Esq.-- DEAR SIR: Your letter of January 24th received, contents noticed, in which you offer for block 48, and lots 11 and 12 in block 33, $5,000, less commission. I thank you for the offer, but, according to my knowledge of its value, prefer to hold the property a while longer before putting it into the market, if that is the present market price. I have been advised not to sell block 48 for less than $7,200. I may go out there next spring; if so, will call on you if I conclude to sell, or put the property into market then. I would sell on any terms that would make safe the investment and sale sure, giving sufficient time for payment to suit any honest purchaser. I think now, if property sells well in the spring, I may offer it for sale, on becoming better posted as to its true value. This conclusion may enable you to make sale of your block further away from the center.

Yours, truly, FRANKLIN EATON.

On February 14th, Eads not receiving a reply, writes:

Franklin Eaton, Esq., Wentworth, N.H.-- DEAR SIR: I wrote you in January last that I had an offer of $5,000 for lots 11 and 12, block 33, and all block 48, Sherburne & Beebe's addition; one-third cash, balance on or before three years, at 8 per cent. interest. Please let me hear from you. Give me your lowest price on above terms, and if I can't sell to the one I have offer from, will try further. Please answer by return mail.

Yours, truly, A. D. EADS.

Eads writes again on the second day of March:

Franklin Eaton-- DEAR SIR: I wrote you, submitting an offer on lots 11 and 12, block 33, and block 48, of Sherburne & Beebe's addition; but have no reply. Please price them, if they are for sale, and I will make sale of them, if not too high. Please let me hear from you, and oblige,

Yours, truly, A. D. EADS.

Eaton, on the eleventh of March, answers this letter as follows:

WENTWORTH, N.H., March 11, 1882.

A. D. Eads-- DEAR SIR: Your favors, with offer inclosed of $5,000 for block 48, and lots 11 and 12, in block 33, received. I did not intend putting that property on the market for sale at the present time, nor until I visit Minneapolis or become better posted on its valuation and prospects; but a man can to see me from there and requested me to make him the first offer for block 48, which I promised to do, and have offered to sell him for $6,000, net. Have heard nothing since, as it has not yet been time. Will not sell to any other one at any price until suitable time expires, say fifteenth or twentieth of this month. After that, will take that price for same if my offer is not accepted by the one to whom it is made, or I learn something to change my mind. I am not very anxious to put that property on the market just at present, but if I should conclude to do so, should expect to take whatever it would bring. If you think my offer unreasonable, attribute it to the fact that my means of information are limited. Accept my thanks for your offer, although at present I decline its acceptance.

Respectfully yours, FRANKLIN EATON.

Your terms as to payment are not objectionable,-- only the sum. Am not very urgent for the money all being paid down.

Eads then replies to this letter as follows: MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., March 17, 1882.

Franklin Eaton, Esq., Wentworth, N.H.-- DEAR SIR: Yours of the 11th is received, and I am sorry you did not write me at once and give my party the first chance, as he had made an offer. He has been waiting for an answer, and had made his calculations to take it, and has now agreed to do so at $6,000 net, for block 48, provided the other party does not take it by the 20th, as stated in your letter. He has paid some money down, so if the other party does not take it by the twentieth inst. please notify me at once. The terms are as proposed in my former letter. You can have the matter closed through the Security Bank here.

Hoping to hear from you by return mail, I am

Yours, truly, A. D. EADS.

On the twenty-fifth of March, Eaton wrote the following letter, which it is claimed conferred upon Eads the authority to act as Eaton's agent:

Wentworth, March 25, 1882.

A. D. Eads, Esq.-- DEAR SIR: Your letter of March 17th is at hand. In reply will say you are entitled to the benefit of my offer of six thousand dollars net, $6,000,) for block 48, in Sherburne & Beebe's addition to Minneapolis, terms two thousand dollars cash, with first mortgage securing four thousand dollars on said block, to be paid at stated intervals, all to be paid within, or at the expiration of, three years from date of said deed, with interest at 8 per cent., payable semi-annually.

I do not understand I am to pay any expenses of collections of interest or principal, or fees of any kind, only to furnish the full title shown on the records, as it now stands, as will appear by abstract of title in fee belonging to David Eaton, and conveyed by said David Eaton to me, Franklin Eaton; the last conveyance not yet on record in Minneapolis, but will be at time of deeding, so as to be all straight and sound, conveying all the title derived from Sherburne, as will appear by record in Hennepin county, at Minneapolis, to which you can refer.

Eaton there states explicitly, in this letter to Eaton, what kind of conveyance he is willing to give, provided the offer of $6,000 is accepted, and the money paid.

The payments can be made through your bank, and the National Bank of Newbury, Wells River, Vermont, and deeds and mortgage conveyed through the banks in that manner, if no better way appears. You are to get your fees for doing the business of the party you buy for, as I understand the arrangement.

Yours,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Griffith v. Frankfort General Insurance Company
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1916
    ... ... 123 Cal. 379, 55 P. 1064; ... Ming v. Pratt, 22 Mont. 262, 56 P. 279; Saving & L. Soc. v. Gerichten, 64 Cal. 520, 2 P. 405; Rust v ... Eaton, 24 F. 830; Merritt v. Wassenich, 49 F ... 785; United States Bedding Co. v. Andre, 105 Ark ... 111, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1019, ... ...
  • Hodson v. Wells & Dickey Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1915
    ... ... 494; Hartman v. Flaherty, 80 ... Ind. 472; Shade v. Creviston, 93 Ind. 591; ... Picard v. McCormick, 11 Mich. 68; Doran v ... Eaton, 40 Minn. 35, 41 N.W. 244; Union Nat. Bank v ... Hunt, 76 Mo. 439 ...          No ... legal fraud can be predicted on "dealer's talk" ... 323; Whart. Agency, § ... 163; Rice v. Peninsular Club, 52 Mich. 87, 17 N.W ... 708; Chaffe v. Stubbs, 37 La.Ann. 656; Rust v ... Eaton, 24 F. 830; Reitz v. Martin, 12 Ind. 306, ... 74 Am. Dec. 215; Hurley v. Watson, 68 Mich. 531, 36 ... N.W. 726; Snow v. Warner, 10 ... ...
  • Schafer v. Olson
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1912
    ...acts not ratified, unless all material facts and circumstances are made known to principal. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 1189; Rust v. Eaton, 24 F. 830; Wheeler v. Northwestern Sleigh Co. 39 F. Wheeler v. McGuire, 86 Ala. 398, 2 L.R.A. 808, 5 So. 190; Dean v. Bassett, 57 Cal. 640; Billings......
  • Johnston v. Milwaukee & Wyoming Investment Company
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1895
    ...they could not claim to be protected in dealing with Adams as having apparent authority to sell. (Hurley v. Watson, 68 Mich. 531; Rust v. Eaton, 24 F. 830.) company gave Adams no implied or apparent authority to sell. (Bickford v. Menier, 107 N.Y. 490; Dodge v. McDonnell, 14 Wis. 553*; New ......

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