Shull v. Lawrence
Decision Date | 05 December 1919 |
Citation | 186 P. 246,32 Idaho 527 |
Parties | JOHN SHULL, Respondent, v. ANDREW T. LAWRENCE and GEORGE H. LAWRENCE, Appellants |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
VENDOR AND PURCHASER-OPTION CONTRACT-TENDER.
1. Where a vendor grants an option for the purchase of certain lands, the purchase price to be paid in instalments, and after giving the option the vendor encumbers the land with a mortgage and agrees with the holders of the option that the assumption of the mortgage indebtedness shall be considered a part payment of the purchase price of the land, without specifying in the agreement upon which of the instalments of the purchase price it shall be applied, the holders of the option, upon electing to purchase the property, may make application of the payment made by the assumption of the mortgage indebtedness upon such instalments of the purchase price as they may direct.
[As to rights of parties under optional contract for purchase of land where land is subject to encumbrance not provided for in contract, see note in Ann.Cas. 1913E, 923.]
2. A formal tender of performance by a purchaser is unnecessary and an offer, together with readiness and ability on his part to perform, is sufficient where the obligations of the vendor and purchaser are mutual and concurrent, and the vendor refuses to perform his part of the contract except upon a condition which is repugnant to the terms thereof.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Bingham County. Hon. Robert M. Terrell, Presiding Judge.
Action for possession of real property. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed.
Reversed and remanded. Costs awarded to appellants.
Wm. A Lee and Holden & Holden, for Appellants.
If respondent drew said option contract with the intention of having appellants understand by its terms that the money which he was to receive from the Devereaux Mortgage Co., was to be applied as a first payment on the purchase price of the land in question and it is capable of such construction, appellants are entitled to have it so construed, even though respondent intended that the language he employed should mean that said money was not to be applied on appellants' first payment.
D. E. Rathbun and J. M. Stevens, for Respondent, cite no authorities.
This is an action to obtain possession of real property. On May 17, 1915, respondent John Shull, by a contract in writing, granted to appellants, Andrew T. Lawrence and George H. Lawrence, an option to purchase the land in question, the right to purchase under the option to be exercised within one year from the date of the instrument. The option contained the following paragraphs:
On Sept. 7, 1915, respondent being desirous of obtaining a loan upon the lands to be secured by a mortgage thereon, two agreements in writing were executed by respondent, appellants and the Devereaux Mortgage Company, an Oregon corporation, which recited the existence of the option above referred to, and by which appellants authorized and consented to the execution of the mortgage. The agreements were identical, except as to the description of the land, and each contained the following provisions:
Appellants occupied the premises during the season of 1915 under a lease as provided for in the option, which lease expired March 1, 1916. Prior to the said date, respondent served notice on appellants that he would require possession of the land at the expiration of the lease. Appellants, however, continued in possession, and on May 13, 1916, notified respondent in writing that they elected to exercise the right to purchase granted them by the option. This notice contained the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCarty v. Sauer
...Merrill, and Merrill & Merrill for appellants. "The debtor or payer may direct the application of the payments on a contract." (Shull v. Lawrence, 32 Idaho 527; Smith v. Thomas, 42 Idaho 375, 245 P. 399. 30 1237; Powell v. State, 4 So. 719.) It is the duty of the court to make findings upon......
-
Shull v. Lawrence
...or take part in the opinion. OPINION DUNN, J. This cause was brought to this court on a former appeal, in which the opinion is in 32 Idaho 527, 186 P. 246, where a of the facts up to that time may be found. On that appeal judgment giving possession of the property in controversy to responde......
-
American Mutual Building And Loan Co. v. Kesler
... ... indebtedness secured by the mortgage. In re application of ... payments, see: Shull v. Lawrence, 32 Idaho 527, 533, ... 186 P. 246; Smith v. Thomas, 42 Idaho 375, 379, 245 ... P. 399. It was therefore within the power and ... ...
-
Evans v. Humphrey
... ... Loucks, supra.) ... It is a ... familiar principle that a debtor may direct application of a ... payment to one of several debts. (Shull v. Lawrence, ... 32 Idaho 527, 533, 186 P. 246.) ... VARIAN, ... J. Lee, C. J., and Givens and McNaughton, JJ., concur. Mr ... Justice ... ...