St. Nicholas Church v. Kropp
| Decision Date | 15 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,960 - (98) |
| Citation | 160 N.W. 500,135 Minn. 115 |
| Parties | ST. NICHOLAS CHURCH v. CARL KROPP AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Stearns county against the Merchants National Bank of St. Cloud to recover $1,000 upon a certified check drawn upon defendant bank. The bank answered deposited the money in court, and obtained an order requiring Carl Kropp, the maker of the check, to intervene. In his answer the intervener set up the facts stated at the beginning of the opinion. The case was tried before Roeser J., who made findings, including in them the answers of the jury to questions submitted, and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant Kropp appealed. Reversed with direction to the trial court to amend its conclusion of law so as to award the fund in court to defendant Kropp.
Equity -- right to jury trial.
1. Where a party is ordered to interplead and his right to a fund paid into court by a defendant depends upon the power of the court to relieve him from the legal consequences of an accepted bid, he is not entitled to a jury trial.
Contract -- offer and acceptance -- mistake -- equitable relief without prejudice to plaintiff.
2. It was found that through an honest mistake, without being negligent, the intervener made a bid for the erection of a church for $2,350 less than intended; that plaintiff accepted the bid without knowledge of the mistake; that the next day and before plaintiff had altered its position in any respect it was notified of the mistake and informed that intervener would not enter the contemplated written contract to erect the church; and that thereupon plaintiff accepted a belated bid of less amount than intervener intended to make his, and much less than the two bids opened at the time intervener's was accepted under which the church was erected. Held that the mistake, though unilateral, was so great that it must be considered fundamental, and the minds of the parties did not meet; that the one who accepted the bid did not change its position in the slightest because of its acceptance prior to notice of the mistake, and could not be prejudiced by a cancelation of the bid, hence equity should cancel the same and restore to the bidder the certified check accompanying the bid.
J. D. Sullivan, for appellant.
Paul Ahles, for respondent.
Plaintiff, a religious body, desired to erect a church. It advertised for bids. Carl Kropp and two others responded. Each bid was accompanied by a certified check in the sum of $1,000 to insure the entering of a contract by the successful bidder to build the church according to the plans and specifications upon which the bids were made. When the three bids were opened in the presence of the bidders, Kropp's, being for $30,973, was found to be the lowest -- about $3,900 below the next highest. Thereupon the committee of plaintiff, in charge of the building of the church, voted to award the work to Kropp, and notified him that his bid was accepted. The contract was not then drawn, owing to the illness of the architect. The same day Kropp, on his return home, discovered that through some oversight the item of the structural iron required in the building had not been included in his bid. The value of furnishing this in place was estimated at $2,350. The next day he notified the building committee of his mistake, and that he could not enter the contract unless he received at least $2,000 more than the bid. This the committee declined to give. Kropp refused to enter the contract and stopped payment of his certified check. The erection of the church building was awarded to one Lange for $32,775 on a belated bid received three or four days after the others had been opened. This action was brought by plaintiff against the bank upon which the check was drawn. The bank answered, deposited the amount of the check in court, and asked the court to require Kropp to interplead. This was done. Kropp's answer was that he had made a mistake in his bid as above indicated; that he had at once, upon discovery of the mistake, notified plaintiff; that this was done before all the bids were received; that plaintiff knew of the mistake made by him; and that the bid was withdrawn before accepted. Appellant demanded a jury trial. This was denied, but the court submitted three issues to a jury which found thereon: That the building committee awarded the contract to Kropp on the day the bids were opened; that Kropp made an honest mistake in his bid without being negligent; and that the building committee had no knowledge of Kropp's mistake when it accepted his bid. The court made findings of fact, adopting therein the verdict of the jury, and conclusion of law that plaintiff was entitled to the fund. A new trial was denied, and Kropp appeals. But two questions are presented by the assignment of errors. Did the action, upon the issues framed between plaintiff and the intervener, become one in equity? Do the findings of fact justify the conclusions of law?
Kropp was not entitled to the fund in court, unless he could be relieved from the effect of the acceptance of his bid. This depends strictly upon the power of a court of equity to grant relief. His offer had been accepted. That made at least a preliminary contract. Tunny v. City of Hastings, 121 Minn. 212, 141 N.W. 168. As part thereof he had agreed that this fund should belong to plaintiff in the event that he refused to enter the contemplated contract. It would seem clear that a strictly legal action based on the ownership of the fund, could not be maintained by Kropp so long as a legal acceptance of his bid stood in the way. In fact, his whole appeal for redress in this court is rested on the proposition that a court of equity may, in certain cases where a court of law is powerless, grant relief, and that this is such a case. We are agreed that no error was committed in refusing to try the case to a jury. In Burkee v. Matson, 114 Minn. 233, 130 N.W. 1025, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 924, it was stated: "The statutory proceeding of interpleader, where applicable, provides substantially the remedy formerly obtained by a bill of interpleader in equity." The New York statute on interpleader is practically the same as ours, and there it is held that the issues made by a party directed to interplead are to be tried to the court. Clark v. Mosher, 107 N.Y. 118, 14 N.E. 96, 1 Am. St. 798.
The jury and court found that, in his bid, Kropp had made an honest mistake without negligence. The mistake amounted to more than $2,000. Does this entitle him to any relief, when plaintiff was not to blame in any way for the mistake, and had no knowledge that Kropp had made it? We think the facts herein bring the case within this principle governing a unilateral mistake stated in section 138, Story Equity Jurisprudence: "But where the mistake is of so fundamental a character that the minds of the parties have never, in fact, met, or where an unconscionable advantage has been gained, by mere mistake or misapprehension; and there was no gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff, either in falling into the error or in not sooner claiming redress; and no intervening rights have accrued; and the parties may still be placed in statu quo; equity will interfere, in its discretion, to prevent intolerable injustice." In Hearne v. Marine Ins. Co. 20 Wall. 488, 22 L.Ed. 395, it is said: The question here is whether a mistake of over $2,000 in the bid upon the construction of this church is merely incidental or fundamental. We think the amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial