Schofield v. Stoddard

• Decision Date: 30 July 1886
• Citation: 5 A. 314,58 Vt. 290
• Parties: SCHOFIELD and another v. STODDARD.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

5 A. 314

58 Vt. 290

SCHOFIELD and another

v. STODDARD.¹

Supreme Court of Vermont.

July 30, 1886.

Appeal from chancery.

Heard on bill, answer, traverse, and report of special master. The court, Redfield, Ch., pro forma, ordered and decreed that the orator have decree according to the prayer of the bill.

The master found, together with many immaterial things, that the orators, Schofield and Rider, were brothers-in-law; that May 6, 1869, the defendant conveyed the land and water rights now in issue to the orators; that thereon they erected a starch factory, and put in the necessary machinery, which was owned by the orators in equal undivided parts; that in December, 1869, Rider borrowed some money of one Richardson, and, as security therefor, gave a quitclaim deed of his interest in the factory property to said Richardson; that Richardson never took possession of said premises, but held said deed as security as aforesaid, and never exercised any acts of ownership under said deed; that afterwards Richardson, by request of Rider, deeded said premises to Schofield; that said Rider and Schofield manufactured starch in company for one or two seasons, and that their said partnership business had never been settled; that, in the summer of 1878, Rider finished off some of the rooms in the dry-house of the factory, and moved in there with his family, and occupied the entire premises from 1877 to 1882; that, when said Rider so moved into said premises, he owned no real estate, and that he kept and uses said premises for a homestead; so far as he could do so, having in view that it was company property, bought and still held for a specific joint purpose; that from 1877 to 1881 Schofield was not in Waitsfield, and paid no attention to the factory property; that on December 27, 1881, Schofield came to Waitsfield, and was very anxious to close out his property in said factory; that he talked with Rider and his son about purchasing it; that he talked with the defendant, and urged him to purchase it; that he offered it to the defendant for $325; that the defendant offered him $225; that Mr. Rider's claims and interests were discussed, and Schofield agreed, on the payment of $325, "to warn Mr. Rider out at once;" that the defendant was also informed by Schofield that Rider was offering $250 for it, and that it was possible that Rider would buy it; that Rider wanted it, and knew where he could get the money before the first of April then next; that the defendant then said he would pay $225 for it, and give Rider a chance to pay him $250, and, if he did so before the first of April, he, the defendant, would deed to him, and, if he didn't pay the $250 before that time, "there was room enough for both;" that the defendant afterwards modified this offer by saying that he might want to do some work about the buildings before that time; that this offer was not accepted; that Schofield next met Rider, and it was settled between them that, if Mr. Rider paid $250 before the first of April, Schofield would deed him the property, and Rider then understood that if he paid said $250 their factory matters were to be considered settled, and he would own the property; that this stood as an offer on the part of Schofield, which Rider could accept if he chose, which he then expressed a purpose to accept, but which he was in nowise bound to accept; that afterwards Schofield wrote Stoddard a letter in which he said:

"I will make you one more offer, although I have said I would not take so small a price if it rotted down. If you want the concern for...