Scarritt v. St. John's Methodist Episcopal Church

• Decision Date: 06 May 1879
• Citation: 7 Mo.App. 174
• Parties: SANFORD G. SCARRITT ET AL., Plaintiffs in Error, v. ST. JOHN'S METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

7 Mo.App. 174

SANFORD G. SCARRITT ET AL., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.ST. JOHN'S METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH, Defendant in Error.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 6, 1879.

1. To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, a memorandum of a contract for the sale realty must be such as will enable the court to declare the meaning of the parties and to identify the property without having recourse to oral testimony.

2. Where such a contract is claimed to be contained in several papers, oral testimony in inadmissible to show what papers are referred to; this must appear from the face of the document itself.

ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

JOHN M. GLOVER, for plaintiffs in error: A vote of a corporation, entered on their records and signed by the clerk, is a sufficient memorandum.-- Tufts v. Mining Co., 14 Allen, 407; Johnson v. Trinity Church, 11 Allen, 123; Chase v. Lowell, 7 Gray, 33; Rhodes v. Castner, 12 Allen, 130. Only the signature of the party to be charged is required.-- Flight v. Bolland, 4 Russ. 298; Shirley v. Shirley, 7 Blackf. 452; Claison v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484; Railroad Co. v. Evans, 6 Gray, 25. The agreement is binding upon the party who signs it.-- Halsa v. Halsa, 8 Mo. 303; Ivory v. Murphy, 26 Mo. 534. Only such a description as will reasonably identify the land is required-- McCarthy v. Ryle, 4 Coldw. 345; Lewis v. Band, 3 McLean, 56; Shaver v. Shoemaker, Phill. Eq. 327; Hanley v. Blackford, 1 Dana, 1; Phillips v. Hawkins, Phill. Eq. 193; Fenby v. Grigsby, 9 Leigh, 387. If the terms of the contract can be collected from the correspondence of the parties, or from any separate papers referring manifestly to the same subject-matter, it will be a sufficient memorandum, within the seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds.--Story on Con. 489; Dobell v. Hutchinson, 3 Ad. & E. 355; Smith v. Surman, 9 Barn. & Cress. 261; Gale v. Nixon, 5 Conn. 445; Saunderson v. Jackson, Bos. & Pul. 23 d.

METCALF & JONES, for defendant in error: Any writing offered to establish a contract must contain all the essential terms of a complete contract, expressed with such a degree of certainty that it may be understood without recourse to parol evidence to show the intention of the parties, or to supply any of the necessary requisites of a valid contract.--Browne on Stat. Fr. (2d ed.) 396, sect. 371; Ivory v. Murphy, 36 Mo. 534. To constitute a valid and sufficient memorandum, it must contain the names of both the contracting parties as vendor and vendee.--Browne on Stat. Fr. (2d ed.) 396, sect. 372; Id. 398, sect. 374; Sherburne v. Shaw, 1 N. H. 157; Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 198; Osborne v. Phelps, 19 Conn. 73; Bailey v. Ogden, 3 Johns. 399. It must show the price agreed to be paid for the property sold, where the contract is one of sale--Browne on Stat. Fr. 399, sect. 376; Ide v. Stanton, 15 Vt. 691; Parker v. Bodley, 4 Bibb, 102; Ellis v. Deadman, 4 Bibb, 467; Farewell v. Lowther, 18 Ill. 252. The subject-matter must be fully set forth and described, and where land is purported to be bargained for, it must be so described that it may be identified.--Browne on Stat. Fr. 406, sect. 385; King's Administrator v. Wood, 7 Mo. 390; Kay v. Curd, 6 B. Mon. 103; Ferguson v. Staver, 33 Pa. St. 411; Ives v. Armstrong, 5 R. I. 567; Talman v. Franklin, 3 Duer, 395. The contract must be signed by the party sought to be charged, or by a duly authorized agent of the party.--Browne on Stat. Fr. 372, sect. 355; Id. 385, sect. 365; Claison v. Bailey, 14 Johns. 484; McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460; Frazer v. Ford, 2 Head, 464; Shirley v. Shirley, 7 Blackf. 452. It must contain the terms and conditions of the sale.--Browne on Stat. Fr. 396, sect. 371. There must have been a delivery of the writing.--Id. 371, sect. 354.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action is for damages for an alleged breach of contract for the sale of real estate. The defence is the Statute of Frauds. Other defences in the answer need not be alluded to for the purposes of the opinion. The plaintiffs took a nonsuit, which the court refused to set aside. The memorandum of the sale upon which the plaintiffs rely is an extract from the minutes of the quarterly conference of the defendant. It was excluded as incompetent. The entire deposition of one Boogher was also excluded on the same ground. The plaintiffs then announced that they had no other evidence of any memorandum in writing, but were ready to prove their case in other respects. The defendant conceded all such additional proof, and moved the court to instruct that there could be no recovery on the case as thus made; which was done.

It will be assumed, under the defendant's concession, that the plaintiff could have proved that the defendant, a religious corporation, was managed by a board of trustees called the quarterly conference, which had the fullest power to act for it in the purchase of land; that J. T. Field was the secretary of that board, and his signature is attached to the report of its meetings; and that the trustees had knowledge of and sanctioned the entry make by Field. The entry offered was the following, from the minutes of a meeting of the quarterly conference, signed by Field: “Brother Coleman, chairman of board of trustees, regretted being unable to make a written report. A meeting has been held, at which the debt of the church for building was ascertained to be about $28,000, exclusive of the debt created by purchase of adjoining lot for parsonage, and that Bishop Marvin and Dr. Boyle had been requested to assist in trying to raise funds to liquidate the debt; and he would make a further report to next conference. He expressed hope that the debt would be paid off at an early date.”

The statements in the deposition of Boogher, which it is claimed supply any defects in the memorandum, are to the effect that Coleman was president of the board of trustees of the defendant; that the witness saw a letter from Russell Scarritt, the alleged vendor, in whose shoes the plaintiffs stand, the substance of which was that Scarritt desired the board to put the purchase obligation in the shape of a note, so that he could draw his revenue from it, as he wanted to have his estate in...