Stierle v. Rayner

• Decision Date: 15 December 1917
• Parties: STIERLE. v. RAYNER.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

102 A. 581

92 Conn. 180

STIERLE.

v. RAYNER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 15, 1917.

Appeal from Superior Court. Hartford County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Suit by Anna F. Stierle against Robert L. Rayner. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. No error.

Suit for the specific performance of a contract to buy the plaintiff's real estate and for damages. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.

In October, 1915, the defendant approached the plaintiff, who was the owner of certain real estate in Simsbury, and concluded negotiations for its purchase. The purchase price agreed upon was $10,000. The parties thereupon caused to be prepared and executed a bond for a deed in the ordinary form wherein, in consideration of $100 paid down, Mrs. Stierle covenanted that on or before February 1, 1916, and immediately upon the latter's performance of his agreement to pay $9,900, being the purchase price less the $100 already paid, she would convey the premises to the defendant by a good and sufficient warranty deed containing the usual covenants, and the defendant covenanted that he would pay said sum of $9,900 on or before said date. The instrument further provided that, if the defendant should fall to make payment as agreed, he should forfeit all claims to the premises and all moneys paid in pursuance of the agreement.

On January 31, 1916, the plaintiff, at the instance of the defendant, agreed, in consideration of a further payment of $150, to extend the time for the completion of the transaction to April 1, 1916. In pursuance of this agreement a new bond for a deed similar in all respects, save as to the date of performance, the amount of the consideration, and the amount of the balance of the purchase price to be paid, was executed by the parties.

On March 30, 1916, the plaintiff, having heard nothing further from the defendant, and having made repeated unsuccessful efforts to reach him by telephone to make an appointment to close the transaction, sent him by registered mail a letter informing him that she would be at the town clerk's office in Simsbury on April 1st at 1 o'clock in the afternoon to perform her part of the agreement and give him a deed of the property.

On April 1st she kept her appointment, and waited for over two hours for the defendant, who neither appeared nor sent word. At this time she had the town clerk prepare a warranty deed of the premises from herself to the defendant in which she warranted that the same was free from all incumbrances except a mortgage of $3,500 in favor of Hattie Hawley, which it was provided that the grantee assumed and agreed to pay. Subsequently, on April 4th, after consultation with her attorney, and not having heard from the defendant, she again wrote him expressing her willingness to give him until April 10, 1916, to perform his contract, and again naming the town clerk's office in Simsbury as the place and 10 o'clock in the forenoon of said day as the time where and when she would be present to complete the transaction. The letter also expressed her willingness to meet the defendant at any other place or at any other time before April 10th which he might name.

Pursuant to this letter the plaintiff was at the appointed place on April 10th at the hour named and waited there for two hours, but the defendant did not appear or send word. At this time the warranty deed, which had been drafted upon the plaintiff's previous visit, was executed by her. This is the deed which she proposed and intended to give in fulfillment of her obligations.

At the time that the agreement of purchase and sale was entered into the premises were incumbered by a mortgage for $3,500 to Harriet E. Hawley, and remained so incumbered until after April 10, 1916. The note secured by this mortgage was on demand. No demand was ever made by the holder; neither was any offer to pay the note made to the mortgagee.

Stanley W. Edwards, of Hartford, for appellant.

William P. Henney, of Hartford, for appellee.

PRENTICE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). The instrument executed by the parties and whose specific performance is sought is one commonly known as a bond for a deed. By its terms the plaintiff property owner agreed to convey by a good and sufficient warranty deed containing the usual covenants certain real estate immediately upon the receipt from the defendant purchaser of the stipulated purchase price and the defendant agreed to pay that price. Performance was to be had on or before April 1, 1916.

These were mutual and dependent covenants demanding of each of the parties readiness and willingness to perform, and requiring as a condition of judicial enforcement or redress for breach at the complaint of either such readiness and willingness on his part or a showing of sufficient excuse for their absence. Phillips v. Sturm, 91 Conn. 331, 335, 99 Atl. 689; Smith v. Lewis, 24 Conn. 624, 625, 63 Am. Dec. 180. Readiness to perform on the...