Scott v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 05 January 1914 |
| Citation | 163 S.W. 265,177 Mo.App. 8 |
| Parties | ROBERT SCOTT, Respondent, v. F. M. LEWIS, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court.--Hon. Fred Lamb, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Earl F Nelson for appellant.
T. B Davis and D. M. Wilson for respondent.
Suit for damages for breach of a contract to lend plaintiff money with which to complete the purchase of a farm. Plaintiff, in reliance upon the alleged contract to lend him the necessary money, entered into an oral contract with the owner of the farm for its purchase and paid $ 400 down on same. Owing to the failure of defendant to comply with his agreement to lend, plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase and lost the payment he had made; hence this suit.
The farm plaintiff desired to buy belonged to a man named Cousins who was demanding $ 4600 for it. Plaintiff had only $ 1100 of his own, and went to defendant and told him he, plaintiff could buy the Cousins farm if defendant would lend him $ 3500 on it. Defendant agreed to do this. Relying on this agreement, plaintiff agreed with Cousins to buy the farm at $ 4600. The warranty deed from Cousins to plaintiff and plaintiff's deed of trust to defendant were to be executed the following Wednesday and put up in the bank. Simultaneously with the putting up of these deeds, plaintiff was to pay $ 400 down on the place and the balance, $ 4200, was to be paid February 1, 1911. On the following Wednesday, as plaintiff was on his way to the bank to meet Cousins and have the deeds made and pay the $ 400, he passed the place where defendant was stopping and told defendant he was on his way to pay the $ 400 and to have the deeds made, and wanted to know of him if he could surely depend on his letting him have the money. To this defendant replied "Yes, you can." Relying upon this assurance, thus doubly made, plaintiff paid Cousins the $ 400, and the warranty deed from Cousins to plaintiff and the trust deed from plaintiff to defendant were executed and put up with the bank to be held until February 1, 1911, when the $ 4200 was to be paid and the deeds delivered. Along in December, defendant started to his home in Arkansas. Plaintiff drove him to the station, and on the way, plaintiff asked him what he should do to get money when February 1st arrived. Defendant told him he had authorized his nephew to turn the money over to him when the deal was to be closed, and when that time came, to go to his nephew and get it.
As February 1, drew near plaintiff spoke to the nephew about getting the money for use on that date. The nephew said his uncle, the defendant, had made no arrangements in reference to any money and that he knew nothing of it. And on January 31, defendant wrote plaintiff that, because he had not succeeded in getting in some money as he expected, he could not let him have the loan. Plaintiff then endeavored to get the money elsewhere in order to complete his purchase of the farm, but was unable to obtain it and lost the purchase of the farm and the $ 400 he had paid thereon. He then brought...
To continue reading
Request your trial