Sarran v. Richards

• Decision Date: 05 December 1910
• Citation: 132 S.W. 285,151 Mo. App. 656
• Parties: SARRAN v. RICHARDS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

132 S.W. 285

151 Mo. App. 656

SARRAN v. RICHARDS.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 5, 1910.

1. CONTRACTS (§ 23)—OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE —CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE—EFFECT.

Where a condition is imposed in a purported acceptance of an offer, or any change is made from the offer itself, the acceptance becomes a new offer, and will not constitute a contract until the other party has agreed to it.

2. VENDOR AND PURCHASER (§ 16)—CONTRACT OF SALE—OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE.

Plaintiff offered $9,000 in cash for defendant's land, which defendant accepted on condition that defendant be allowed to collect the rent for that year, and that plaintiff would take the land subject to a lease for the following year. Plaintiff in reply inquired as to the conditions of the lease, and whether it would be possible to persuade the tenant to forego the same. Some other correspondence followed when defendant notified plaintiff that he withdrew all propositions concerning the sale, having sold the land to another. Held, that there was no acceptance of the offer.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barton County; B. G. Thurman, Judge.

Action by A. L. Sarran against Thomas J. Richards. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. W. Timmonds, for appellant. Arthur H. Shay, for respondent.

COX, J.

This is an action for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale of real estate in Barton county, Mo. During the progress of the trial, it developed that since the making of the alleged contract the defendant had sold the land to another party, and plaintiff then asked an assessment of damages in lieu of specific performance. Testimony was heard by the court, plaintiff's bill dismissed, and he has appealed.

The question to be determined in this appeal is whether or not there was a binding contract of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendant. On December 9, 1910, plaintiff sent defendant the following telegram: "Decatur, Illinois, Dec. 9, 1910. Thomas J. Richards, Streator, Ill. Will give you nine thousand dollars cash for your three hundred nine acres Barton County. Wire acceptance and send abstract to National Bank of Decatur. A. L. Sarran." On the same day defendant, who was then at Streator, Ill., replied by wire as follows: "A. L. Sarran, Decatur, Illinois. Accept your proposition nine thousand cash three hundred nine acres Barton county, Missouri, reserving rents this year and subject to lease for Nineteen ten. Abstract to bank to-day. Thos. P. Richards." On the same date defendant addressed a letter to plaintiff, which plaintiff received, and in which defendant stated that he had a tenant in possession of the premises whose lease would not expire until March 1, 1911; that the rent for that year had been practically paid, and that the farm was rented to a man named Garrett for one-third of the crops, also stating that he had forwarded the abstract to the National Bank of Decatur. In reply to this letter plaintiff wrote to defendant on December 10th, reciting the two telegrams above set out, and in addition made the following statement: "I will be glad to have you advise me by return mail, addressing me at Mt. Sterling, Illinois, as to the condition of the lease for 1910; also advise me the name of your tenant and whether or not in your opinion it would be possible to persuade him to forego the lease." On December 11th defendant wrote plaintiff as follows: "I have written Mr. J. E. Hull, my agent, telling him that farm was sold and to see Mr. E. Garrett and ask him to give up possession March 1, 1910. Have not yet signed lease with him for next...