Singleton v. Hill

• Decision Date: 26 September 1895
• Citation: 91 Wis. 51,64 N.W. 588
• Parties: SINGLETON v. HILL ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

91 Wis. 51

64 N.W. 588

SINGLETON

v.HILL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Sept. 26, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Juneau county; A. W. Newman, Judge.

Action by John Singleton against Judson D. Hill and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, and to set aside a deed made to Johnson with knowledge of such contract. Sheldon Ranney, who had written authority from defendant Hill, the owner of certain lands, to sell the same for $175, negotiated with plaintiff in regard to such a sale, with the result that he received from the latter an offer of that sum therefor. Thereupon Ranney, by letter, communicated such offer to Hill. Thereafter Hill, by letter written to the former, accepted the offer, and agreed to forward the deed. Ranney then communicated such acceptance to respondent, who thereupon paid to the former $10 on the contract, and, by authority of the agent, entered into possession of the land pursuant thereto. Subsequently, Johnson, with knowledge of the facts, purchased the land from Hill, and obtained a deed therefor.F. S. Veeder, for appellants.

Barney & Beebe, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J.

Appellants excepted to the finding of fact that respondent paid part of the consideration, and entered into possession, by authority of the agent, before the sale and conveyance to Johnson, and that the latter took possession with knowledge of the rights of respondent. It cannot be said there is a clear preponderance of evidence against such finding; therefore it must be sustained. Jones v. Pease, 21 Wis. 644;Docter v. Hellberg, 65 Wis. 415, 27 N. W. 176. This, of itself, is sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the judgment appealed from; but we think the letter written by Ranney, the agent of Hill, conveying to him respondent's proposition, and the letter from Hill to Ranney, accepting the same, constitute a sufficient memorandum of the contract of sale to satisfy the statute of frauds, which provides that “every contract * * * for the sale of any lands * * * shall be void, unless the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, be in writing, and be subscribed by the party by whom the sale is to be made, or by his lawfully authorized agent.” Rev. St. 1878, § 2304. It is not necessary that the memorandum should be formal, or in one writing or paper, or made directly between the parties to the...