Tharaldson v. Everts

• Decision Date: 25 July 1902
• Docket Number: Nos. 12,981-(104).,s. 12,981-(104).
• Citation: 87 Minn. 168
• Parties: IVER THARALDSON v. E. A. EVERTS and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

87 Minn. 168

IVER THARALDSON v. E. A. EVERTS and Others.¹

Nos. 12,981-(104).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 1902.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Otter Tail county, Baxter, J. Affirmed.

Chas C. Houpt and Edward Engerud, for appellant.

E. E. Corliss and Parsons & Brown, for respondents.

LOVELY, J.

Action to determine adverse claim to real property. Plaintiff alleged possession to a tract of land in Otter Tail county, alleging an adverse claim by defendants, and demanded that they be debarred therefrom. The answer alleges that the defendant Everts is the owner in fee of the premises, that the remaining defendants are his tenants, and demands that the title to the property be decreed in him free from the asserted claim of plaintiff. The case was tried to the court, who made findings of fact, and held as a conclusion of law adversely to plaintiff's title, and in favor of defendants. Judgment was entered, from which plaintiff appeals.

The evidence is not returned, and the appeal is here solely upon the pleadings and findings of the trial court, from which it appears that Amos Ralph, on August 25, 1896, was the owner of the land in question. On that date he bargained with one Sorenson for an exchange of this land for another tract owned by the latter, located in the state of Washington. Ralph executed a deed to Sorenson of the Otter Tail land. Sorenson made a deed of the Washington land to Ralph. Both deeds were deposited with the bank at Battle Lake upon a verbal agreement that the deeds were to be delivered to the grantees named therein, respectively, upon the payment by Sorenson to the bank for Ralph of $125, conditioned also that Ralph was to satisfy two mortgages on his land, one for $2,000 in round numbers, and the other of $26.50. The mortgage for $2,000 was paid by Ralph. Ralph died intestate on September 27, 1898, both deeds still remaining in the hands of the bank, and the mortgage of $26.50 being unpaid. On February 26, 1900, Sorenson caused $125 to be paid to the bank, and demanded the delivery to him of the deed of the Otter Tail land. The defendant Everts had succeeded by purchase to the rights of Sorenson, and, through mesne conveyances from the heir of Ralph, plaintiff claims to own the land in controversy, and insists that he is lawfully entitled thereto upon the following grounds: (1) That the delivery of the deeds to the bank at Battle Lake was upon an oral agreement, and therefore void under the statute of frauds, because its terms were not expressed in writing; (2) that either party or his successor in interest had a right to withdraw the deed before delivery; (3) that the death of Ralph before the delivery of his deed terminated the rights of the respective parties.

1. The condition in the agreement for the transfer of the land and the deposit of the two deeds must be treated as an escrow. To make a deed an escrow, it must be delivered to a third party, to be held until the condition is performed, then to be delivered to the grantee. Raymond v. Smith, 5 Conn. 555. In a very early and authoritative definition of an "escrow" it is declared to be "where one doth make and seal a deed and deliver it unto a stranger until certain conditions be performed, and then to be delivered to him to whom the deed is made to take effect as his deed. And so a man may deliver a deed and such a delivery is good." 1 Sheppard, Touch. c. 4, § 58. The conditions of the deposit of a deed in escrow must be definitely expressed, and the deed committed to a third party for delivery upon the performance of the conditions; but it is not necessary that any particular form of words should be used at the time of its deposit, but the terms of the escrow are to be derived from all the circumstances, and it obviates all questions as to the intention of the parties if at the time of the deposit, or, as it is called, the first delivery, it is expressly declared that it is to be delivered upon the performance of such conditions....