Schneider v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 05 January 1907 |
| Docket Number | 14,507 |
| Citation | 75 Kan. 11,88 P. 525 |
| Parties | KATIE SCHNEIDER v. CHARLES O. ANDERSON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1907.
Error from Butler district court; GRANVILLE P. AIKMAN, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
--and an undelivered deed, executed by the grantor at the same time and as part of the same transaction, which is deposited by the parties in escrow, constitute a sufficient memorandum of a contract for the sale of lands to satisfy the statute of frauds.
2. STATUTE OF FRAUDS--Construction of Separate Writings. Separate writings may be construed together as containing all the terms of the contract; and if from all of them a definite contract can be gathered it may be enforced notwithstanding the statute, provided the several writings relate to and are connected with the subject-matter of the contract so that they can be fairly said to constitute one transaction.
T. A. Kramer, for plaintiff in error.
Mooney & Stratford, for defendant in error.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to plaintiff's petition in a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of real estate. Plaintiff stood upon the petition and brings error.
The only question is whether the petition states a cause of action. The pleading is very lengthy, but in substance it alleged that Charles O. Anderson, an unmarried man, was the owner of a farm in Butler county, subject to certain encumbrances, and on August 24, 1904, a contract was entered into between them by which defendant agreed to sell the farm to plaintiff for $ 2100; that plaintiff was to have one-half of the corn in the field and defendant the other half; that the purchase-price was to be paid to W. E. Brown, who was to pay off all the encumbrances on the land from the proceeds, and pay the balance, if any, to defendant; that the following memorandum in writing was drawn up and signed by the parties at the time the contract was made:
It was alleged that George Schneider was the duly authorized agent of Katie Schneider and signed the memorandum for her, and that his appointment was not in writing. The petition further alleged that at the same time, as a part of the agreement and for the purpose of carrying out the same, Anderson executed a warranty deed conveying the real estate to plaintiff, which was duly acknowledged before a notary public and was then and there deposited by the parties with W. E. Brown, who was to deliver the same to plaintiff upon receipt of the $ 2100. These, it was alleged, were the only writings executed by the parties in reference to the transaction. Copies of the memorandum and the deed were attached to and made a part of the petition.
The petition alleged that about September 6, 1904, defendant notified plaintiff that he would not carry out the terms of the contract, and other facts were pleaded to the effect that on September 9, 1904, defendant had placed an encumbrance on the land in favor of his mother, which it was averred was without consideration and for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff. Other facts with reference to other encumbrances were set forth but are not important in the present consideration. It was alleged that defendant had appropriated to his own use the entire crop of corn, in violation of the agreement. Plaintiff averred full performance of all the conditions on her part, a tender of the entire sum of $ 2100 to W. E. Brown, and a demand for the delivery of the deed. The relief prayed for was the specific performance of the contract, damages for the value of the part of the corn crop which plaintiff claimed, and the marshalling of the proceeds of the sale so as to protect her title from encumbrances beyond the amount stated in the contract.
The question, therefore, is whether the averments of the petition show an agreement or a note or memorandum thereof in writing, signed by Anderson, for the sale and conveyance of the lands. Our statute of frauds at the time this transaction occurred provided:
"No action shall be brought . . . upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them, . . . unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully authorized." (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 3174.)
This statute has since been amended by adding the words "in writing" after the word "authorized." (Laws 1905, ch. 266, § 1.) The object of the statute is to protect persons from being imposed upon by parol agreements against their consent; to require written evidence of the substance of the contract, signed by the party to be charged. These purposes are satisfied whenever there exists a written statement signed by the party containing either expressly or by necessary inference all the terms of the agreement, the names of the parties, the subject-matter of the contract, the consideration, and the promise, so that nothing remains open to future negotiation.
The memorandum itself, it is contended, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute. It recites that Anderson is to receive of Schneider $ 2100 and is to reserve one-half of the corn in the field, is to leave everything on the farm, and give possession October 1. What the $ 2100 is for is not shown with sufficient definiteness, and the land itself is not sufficiently described. In Hollis v. Burgess, 37 Kan. 487, 15 P. 536, a description of the land as the "Snow farm" was held sufficient. But the ambiguity vanishes and all uncertainty disappears when, in connection with the memorandum, we look at the deed conveying the land to the plaintiff executed by Anderson at the same time and as a part of the same transaction. The $ 2100 appears at once to be the consideration for the sale of the farm, and there is no longer any uncertainty what farm he is to leave everything on and give possession of October 1.
The statute does not require that the contract shall consist of a single instrument. "Several distinct and separate writings may be construed together as containing all the terms of the contract, though only one of them be signed by the party to be charged." (29 A. & E. Encycl. of L. 850, 851, and cases cited. See, also, Pomeroy, Cont., 2d ed., § § 84, 85, 91.) If from all of them the definite terms of a contract can be gathered it may be enforced notwithstanding the statute, provided the several writings relate to and are connected with the subject-matter of the contract so that they can fairly be said to constitute one transaction.
In Charlton v. Columbia Real Estate Co., supra, a duplicate lease of lands had been signed by defendant but not delivered. The memorandum of the contract was insufficient by itself. It was held error to refuse to admit the lease in evidence, and the cause was reversed. The court said: "If all the papers, taken together, contain the whole bargain, they form such a memorandum as will satisfy the statute." (Page 632.)
In Ryan v. United States, supra, the exact question was decided. There was a written proposal by defendant to sell, and a written acceptance by the vendee. The writings, however, were themselves insufficient to take the case out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele v. Nelson
...contemporaneously and form a part of the same contract, will be construed together to ascertain the agreement of the parties. See. Schneider v. Anderson, supra; Haston Citizens' State Bank, 132 Kan. 767, 297 P. 1061; Skinner v. Skinner, 126 Kan. 601, 270 P. 594; also Berg v. Scully, 120 Kan......
-
Rowan v. Harburney Oil Co.
...383, 28 P. 164, 165. 5 Blue Valley Creamery Co. v. Consolidated Products Co. (C.C.A. 8) 81 F. (2d) 182, 187; Schneider v. Anderson, 75 Kan. 11, 88 P. 525, 526, 121 Am.St. Rep. 356; Beckwith v. Talbot, 95 U.S. 289, 291, 292, 24 L.Ed. 496; Morris Furniture Co. v. Braverman, 210 Iowa, 946, 230......
-
Logan v. Waddle
...the contract. 25 R. C. L. p. 682, § 320; Ryan v. U. S., 136 U. S. 68, 10 Sup. Ct. 913, 34 L. Ed. 447; Schneider v. Anderson, 75 Kan. 11, 88 Pac. 525, 121 Am. St. Rep. 356. Cement & Material Co. v. Kreis, 261 Mo. loc. cit. 170, 168 S. W. 1148, quotes with approval from Pomeroy on Specific Pe......
-
Neal v. Owings
... ... All these writings taken ... together constitute a sufficient memorandum of the contract ... to satisfy the statute. (Schneider v. Anderson, 75 ... Kan. 11, 88 P. 525.) While Mrs. Owings did not sign the ... contract she joined her husband in making and acknowledging ... ...