Seifert v. Lanz

• Citation: 150 N.W. 568,29 N.D. 139
• Decision Date: 26 December 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

150 N.W. 568

29 N.D. 139

FRED SEIFERT v. OTTO LANZ, Anton R. Haug, Henry B. Haug, E. E. Van Schoiack, and All Other Persons Unknown Claiming any Estate or Interest in or Lien or Encumbrance upon the Real Property Described in the Complaint in This Action, and Their Unknown Heirs

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 26, 1914

Rehearing denied January 8, 1915.

Appeal from the District Court of Sargent County, Allen, J.

Affirmed.

John L Koeppler and W. S. Lauder, for appellant.

Until delivery, the instrument under which defendants claim was not the plaintiff's deed. Devlin, Real Estate, 3d ed. 260.

Defendants claim the deed was delivered in escrow,--no actual delivery being claimed. To constitute a perfect delivery in escrow there must be a pre-existing contract for the sale and purchase of the land. Campbell v. Thomas, 42 Wis 437, 24 Am. Rep. 427; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 333; 16 Cyc. 568.

An escrow presupposes an enforceable bilateral contract. Fitch v. Bunch, 30 Cal. 208, 2 Bl. Com. 307; 4 Kent, Com. 446; 2 Washb. Real Prop. 583; Jackson ex dem. Gratz v. Catlin, 2 Johns. 259, 3 Am. Dec. 415; Ruggles v. Lawson, 13 Johns. 285, 7 Am. Dec. 375; Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. 500; Miller v. Sears, 91 Cal. 282, 25 Am. St. Rep. 176, 27 P. 589; 1 Devlin, Real Estate, 3d ed. 313, 313a; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 335, and 16 Cyc. 562; Stanton v. Miller, 58 N.Y. 192; Freeland v. Charnley, 80 Ind. 132; Nichols v. Oppermann, 6 Wash. 618, 34 P. 162; Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185, 60 Am. Rep. 291, 26 N.W. 426; McIntyre v. McIntyre, 147 Mich. 365, 110 N.W. 960; De Bow v. Wollenberg, 52 Ore. 404, 96 P. 536, 97 P. 717; Clark v. Campbell, 23 Utah 569, 54 L.R.A. 508, 90 Am. St. Rep. 716, 65 P. 496; Kenney v. Parks, 137 Cal. 527, 70 P. 556.

This transaction relates to the homestead. The wife did not sign the contract for sale, or any contract. There was no pre-existing contract on her part. This renders the contract a mere nullity. Schroeder v. Boyce, 127 Mich. 33, 86 N.W. 387; Rev. Codes 1905, § 5052; Silander v. Gronna, 15 N.D. 552, 125 Am. St. Rep. 616, 108 N.W. 544; Helgebye v. Dammen, 13 N.D. 167, 100 N.W. 245; Rev. Codes 1905, § 7317 (41); Hanson v. Great Northern R. Co. 18 N.D. 329, 138 Am. St. Rep. 768, 121 N.W. 78; Myers v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 69 Minn. 476, 65 Am. St. Rep. 579, 72 N.W. 694.

Specific performance cannot be decreed because of too indefinite description of the land. Runck v. Dimmick, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 214, 111 S.W. 779.

There is a distinction between a mere option to buy, and a bilateral contract of sale. Runck v. Dimmick, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 214, 111 S.W. 779; Libby v. Parry, 98 Minn. 366, 108 N.W. 299; Hopwood v. McCausland, 120 Iowa 218, 94 N.W. 469; Moore v. Allen, 109 Minn. 139, 123 N.W. 292; Darr v. Mummert, 57 Neb. 378, 77 N.W. 767; Nichols v. Oppermann, 6 Wash. 618, 34 P. 162; Thomas v. Sowards, 25 Wis. 635; Freeland v. Charnley, 80 Ind. 132; Campbell v. Thomas, 42 Wis. 437, 24 Am. Rep. 427; Overman v. Kerr, 17 Iowa 485; Parker v. Parker, 1 Gray, 409; Wier v. Batdorf, 24 Neb. 83, 38 N.W. 22; Popp v. Swanke, 68 Wis. 364, 31 N.W. 916; Kopp v. Reiter, 146 Ill. 437, 22 L.R.A. 273, 37 Am. St. Rep. 156, 34 N.E. 942; Comer v. Baldwin, 16 Minn. 172, Gil. 151; Swain v. Burnette, 89 Cal. 564, 26 P. 1093; Stockwell v. Williams, 68 N.H. 75, 41 A. 973.

It was in the plaintiff's power to annex to the deposit of the deed any condition he wished, notwithstanding any prior contract. Wilkins v. Somerville, 80 Vt. 48, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1183, 130 Am. St. Rep. 906, 66 A. 893; Stanton v. Miller, 58 N.Y. 192.

Such deposit of the deed not constituting an escrow, plaintiff had the right to recall or revoke same at will. Prutsman v. Baker, 30 Wis. 644, 11 Am. Rep. 592; Cook v. Brown, 34 N.H. 460; O'Brien v. O'Brien, 19 N.D. 713, 125 N.W. 307; Ward v. Russell, 121 Wis. 77, 98 N.W. 939; Keyes v. Meyers, 147 Cal. 702, 82 P. 304; Kenney v. Parks, 125 Cal. 146, 57 P. 772; Cole v. Cole, 144 Mich. 676, 108 N.W. 101; Cassidy v. Holland, 27 S.D. 287, 130 N.W. 771; Lange v. Cullinan, 205 Ill. 365, 68 N.E. 934.

Where parties deal at arm's length the doctrine of caveat emptor applies. Fargo Gas & Coke Co. v. Fargo Gas & Electric Co. 4 N.D. 219, 37 L.R.A. 593, 59 N.W. 1066; Liland v. Tweto, 19 N.D. 551, 125 N.W. 1032; Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305; 1 Devlin, Real Estate, 3d ed. § 310; Lund v. Thackery, 18 S.D. 113, 99 N.W. 856; Maynard v. Davis, 127 Mich. 571, 86 N.W. 1051.

The delivery of the deed as made here did not vest in Lanz any title to the land. It was a homestead transaction, and no prior contract existed. Anderson v. Goodwin, 125 Ga. 663, 54 S.E. 679; Haynes v. Griffith, 16 Idaho 280, 101 P. 728; Hogueland v. Arts, 113 Iowa 634, 85 N.W. 818; Bales v. Roberts, 189 Mo. 49, 87 S.W. 914; Roberson v. Reiter, 38 Neb. 198, 56 N.W. 877; Matteson v. Smith, 61 Neb. 761, 86 N.W. 472; Bradford v. Durham, 54 Ore. 1, 135 Am. St. Rep. 807, 101 P. 897; Houston Land & T. Co. v. Hubbard, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 546, 85 S.W. 474; Morris v. Blunt, 35 Utah 194, 99 P. 686; Wilkins v. Somerville, 80 Vt. 48, 11 L. R.A. (N.S.) 1183, 130 Am. St. Rep. 906, 66 A. 893; Virginia Pass. & Power Co. v. Patterson, 104 Va. 189, 51 S.E. 157; Hanley v. Sweeny, 48 C. C. A. 612, 109 F. 712, 21 Mor. Min. Rep. 333.

The land was in the open possession of plaintiff's tenant, and plaintiff and his family lived thereon also. O'Toole v. Omlie, 8 N.D. 444, 79 N.W. 849; Dickson v. Dows, 11 N.D. 407, 92 N.W. 798; Shelby v. Bowden, 16 S.D. 531, 94 N.W. 416; Sutton v. Whetstone, 21 S.D. 341, 112 N.W. 850; Everts v. Agnes, 6 Wis. 453; Tisher v. Beckwith, 30 Wis. 55, 11 Am. Rep. 546; Ogden v. Ogden, 4 Ohio St. 182; Harkreader v. Clayton, 56 Miss. 383, 31 Am. Rep. 369; Smith v. South Royalton Bank, 32 Vt. 341, 76 Am. Dec. 179; Henry v. Carson, 96 Ind. 412; Golden v. Hardesty, 93 Iowa 622, 61 N.W. 913; Jackson v. Lynn, 94 Iowa 151, 58 Am. St. Rep. 386, 62 N.W. 704; Seibel v. Higham, 216 Mo. 121, 129 Am. St. Rep. 502, 115 S.W. 987.

Purcell, Divet & Perkins, for respondents.

When documents or deeds are placed in escrow, the maker or grantor loses all control over them. They are simply left to await the happening of some event or the keeping of some condition. They cannot be recalled, nor the escrow disturbed. Nichols & S. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 6 N.D. 406, 71 N.W. 135.

The statute of frauds has no application to an escrow agreement. All that is necessary is a valid contract, either oral or written. Lewis v. Prather, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 749, 21 S.W. 538; Cannon v. Handley, 72 Cal. 133, 13 P. 315; Hughes v. Thistlewood, 40 Kan. 232, 19 P. 629; Baum's Appeal, 113 Pa. 58, 4 A. 461; Tharaldson v. Everts, 87 Minn. 168, 91 N.W. 467; Wittenbrock v. Cass, 110 Cal. 1, 42 P. 300.

Parol evidence to prove the necessary facts is admissible. Manning v. Foster, 49 Wash. 541, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 337, 126 Am. St. Rep. 876, 96 P. 233; Johnson v. Jones, 85 Ala. 286, 4 So. 748; Jenkins v. Harrison, 66 Ala. 345; Guild v. Althouse, 71 Kan. 604, 81 P. 172; Knopf v. Hansen, 37 Minn. 215, 33 N.W. 781; Hughes v. Thistlewood, 40 Kan. 232, 19 P. 629; Arnegaard v. Arnegaard, 7 N.D. 475, 41 L.R.A. 258, 75 N.W. 797.

Where control over the instrument to the extent of the right to recall it is retained, there is no escrow. Bury v. Young, 98 Cal. 446, 35 Am. St. Rep. 186, 33 P. 338; Nolan v. Otney, 75 Kan. 311, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 317, 89 P. 690; Hutton v. Cramer, 10 Ariz. 110, 85 P. 483.

If a contract satisfying the statute of frauds must exist as a foundation for an escrow, the deed itself is a sufficient memorandum of the contract. Moss v. Atkinson, 44 Cal. 16.

Letters addressed to third persons, telling what the oral contract was, may be received in evidence to prove the oral contract. Browne, Stat. Fr. § 353; Singleton v. Hill, 91 Wis. 51, 51 Am. St. Rep. 868, 64 N.W. 588; Jones v. Lloyd, 117 Ill. 597, 7 N.E. 119; Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 546, 42 Am. Rep. 343; Gibson v. Holland, L. R. 1 C. P. 1, 1 Harr. & R. 1, 35 L. J. C. P. N. S. 5, 11 Jur. N. S. 1022, 13 L. T. N. S. 293, 14 Week. Rep. 86; Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707, 4 Am. St. Rep. 800, 4 S.W. 835; Hollis v. Burgess, 37 Kan. 487, 15 P. 536.

The statute of frauds is only concerned with evidence by which an agreement can be established, and it matters not to whom the letters were addressed. Warfield v. Wisconsin Cranberry Co. 63 Iowa 312, 19 N.W. 224; Barry v. Coombe, 1 Pet. 640, 650, 7 L.Ed. 295, 300; Ryan v. United States, 136 U.S. 68, 84, 34 L.Ed. 447, 453, 10 S.Ct. 913.

The depositary of an escrow is the agent of both parties. 16 Cyc. 575, and note 95; Davis v. Clark, 58 Kan. 100, 48 P. 563; Cannon v. Handley, 72 Cal. 133, 13 P. 315; Tharaldson v. Everts, 87 Minn. 168, 91 N.W. 467.

The deed here was signed by both husband and wife, and the contract was fully expressed therein. Johnston v. Jones, 85 Ala. 286, 4 So. 748; Thayer v. Luce, 22 Ohio St. 62; Ryan v. United States, 136 U.S. 84, 34 L.Ed. 453, 10 S.Ct. 913; Nichols & S. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 6 N.D. 404, 71 N.W. 135.

All that is necessary is that there be a note or memorandum signed by the party to be charged. Rev. Codes 1905, § 5407; Worrall v. Munn, 5 N.Y. 246, 55 Am. Dec. 330; McPherson v. Fargo, 10 S.D. 615, 66 Am. St. Rep. 723, 74 N.W. 1057; Gira v. Harris, 14 S.D. 537, 86 N.W. 624; Fitch v. Bunch, 30 Cal. 208; Stanton v. Miller, 58 N.Y. 192.

The contract here, however, is sufficient for all purposes, when followed up with the deed. Instruments executed together, or referring to each other, will be considered together to show the whole transaction. Page, Contr. § 1116; 13 Cyc. 614 and notes; Rev. Codes 1905, § 5346; Stuyvesant v. Western Mortg. & Invest. Co. 22 Colo. 28, 43 P. 144; Thayer v. Luce, 22 Ohio St. 62; Ryan v. United States, 136 U.S. 68, 34 L.Ed. 447, 10 S.Ct. 913; Lee v. Cherry, ...