Sawyer v. Brossart

• Decision Date: 15 December 1885
• Citation: 25 N.W. 876,67 Iowa 678
• Parties: SAWYER v. BROSSART AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

67 Iowa 678

25 N.W. 876

SAWYER

v.BROSSART AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 15, 1885.

Appeal from Johnson district court.

This is an action to enforce the specific performance of an alleged contract for the purchase of certain real estate, or for the recovery of damages for failure to perform, if it be found that the title of the property cannot be conveyed to the plaintiff. The cause being in equity, a trial was had to the court, and a decree was entered for the defendants. Plaintiff appeals.C. S. Rauck and S. H. Farrall, for appellant, D. F. Sawyer.

Boal & Jackson, for appellees, John F. Brossart and others.

ROTHROCK, J.

The defendant John F. Brossart, a resident of Los Angeles, California, was the owner of the property in controversy, consisting of two business rooms in Iowa City. On the twenty-first day of September, 1883, a letter was received by the plaintiff from Brossart, the material part of which is as follows: “Yours at hand. You c n have that building for thirty-five hundred dollars, or the two for five thousand dollars. Let me hear from you at once.” On the next morning the plaintiff sent to Brossart the following telegram:

“IOWA CITY, IOWA, September 21, 1883.

John F. Brossart, Los Angeles, California: Accept your offer for two buildings at five thousand dollars. Money at your order at First National Bank here. Telegraph me immediately when to expect deed.

D. F. SAWYER.”

On the afternoon of the twenty-first day of September a contract of sale was made of one of said business rooms by Messrs. Boal & Jackson to the defendant, Noel, at an agreed price of $5,000, said Boal & Jackson claiming to be agents of Brossart, and authorized to make the sale. Said agents also sent Brossart a telegram, advising him of the sale they had made. Both of said telegrams were received by Brossart at the same time. He conveyed the property to Noel in accord with the contract made by Boal & Jackson. The plaintiff claims that his acceptance of the offer by telegram was binding upon Brossart, and that the contract was complete from the date of such acceptance. It is also claimed that Boal & Jackson were not authorized by Brossart to make a sale of the property; and it is charged that Noel acted in bad faith, and fraudulently interfered and prevented the plaintiff from closingup the purchase. We don't think such claim is well founded. Noel had the same right to purchase this property that the plaintiff had, and if he succeeded in...