The St. Peter Co. v. Bunker

• Decision Date: 01 January 1860
• Citation: 5 Minn. 153
• Parties: THE SAINT PETER COMPANY vs. ROBERT BUNKER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 153

5 Minn. 153

THE SAINT PETER COMPANYvs.

ROBERT BUNKER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Error to district court, Nicollet County.

Points and authorities for plaintiff: —

The complaint does state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Money paid, for the causes, and under the circumstances, stated in the complaint, may be recovered back by civil action. 8 Term R. 516; 3 Bos. & P. 181; 2 Starkie Ev. 114, 118; 1 Term R. 133; 2 Burr. 1010; 3 Starkie Ev. 1614; 5 East, 449; 1 Camp. 293; 2 Esp. 639; 1 Taunt. 65; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 124; 2 Bl. 1073; 1 Black. H. 65; 2 Term R. 763; 3 Term R. 25, 551; 4 Term R. 166; 4 East, 372; 1 Doug. 138, 696; B. N. P. 133; 1 B. & P. 306. 1 Ch. Pl. 388, 389; 1 N. & McC. 210; 5 Hill, 107; 2 Saund. Pl. & Ev. [671], [673]; 4 Denio, 51; 15 Johns. 503; 13 Wend. 33; 16 Wend. 25; 2 Hill, 485; 5 Hill, 389; 7 Mass. 14, 31; 5 Mass. 133, 138; 4 Mass. 135; 1 Pick. 328; 5 Pick. 480; 21 Pick. 1, 9, 14; 4 N. Y. 249, 396; 1 Cow. Tr. 128 (2d ed.), and authorities there cited; 8 Cow. 20; 6 Cow. 90; 6 N. Y. 203; 2 Ind. 413; 6 Blackf. 21. The promise made by defendant to plaintiff upon the surrender and cancellation of the deed, as stated in the complaint, was valid and

binding in the law, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages claimed for the non-performance thereof by the defendant. And the plaintiff is also entitled to recover against the defendant, the amount of moneys paid for survcying the land, making and recording plat, etc., as stated in the complaint.

Points and authorities for defendant: —

1. The plaintiff, we think, has no cause of action. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The subject matter of the contract was a right enjoyed by defendant, to enter government land as a preemptor, which was not the proper subject matter of a contract. A contract touching a preemption right is void. Camp v. Smith, 2 Minn. [155].

2. Contracts in violation of law, and against good policy, are void, and money paid on them cannot be recovered back.

Chatfield & Buell, for plaintiff.

Cox & Bryant, for defendant.

ATWATER, J.

The complaint in this action alleges that the Saint Peter's Land Company (the assignors of the plaintiff), in May, 1854, enered into an agreement in writing with the defendant Robert Bunker, "whereby he, the said defendant, for the considerations mentioned in the said agreement in writing, agreed to sell to the said Saint Peter's Land Company all his right, title, and interest, in and to the following piece or parcel of land, situate in Nicollet County, and then known and described as follows, to-wit: being the front half of one hundred and sixty acres of land, known as `Bunker's claim' lying west, etc., reserving and accepting however from said tract of eighty acres, every alternate block of a town plat proposed to be extended by said company a distance of eighty rods over said eighty acres; also reserving, etc.; and moreover to pay the proportion of the expense of surveying, laying out, platting, and recording, said premises that 40 acres bears to 720. And the said company, in and by the said agreement in writing, agreed to pay the said defendant, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars for the said premises, and to extend the plat of the proposed town of Saint Peter over the same, and to enter the said eighty acres, when the same shall become liable to entry, and to convey to the said defendant the said alternate blocks therein."

The complaint then goes on to allege, that the company paid the said sum of $150 to the defendant, in pursuance of said agreement, and that the defendant executed a quit claim deed of the premises to D. H. Dustin for the use and benefit of the company, and that the defendant did, in and by the said deed of conveyance, covenant and agree, that he would keep the said east half of his claim thereby granted, constantly occupied and possessed, until the same should come into market, and a title thereto could be secured, and that he would defend the same from all intrusions and trespassers, and the said Dustin agreed to enter the same, and convey the alternate blocks to the defendant, and avers performance of all things on the part of the company, which by the terms of the contract it was required to do.

After reciting other matters unnecessary here to notice, the complaint goes on to state, "that afterwards, and after the government surveys of the said lands had been made and established, and in or about the month of June, 1856, the said defendant was desirous to enter and purchase the land included in his said claim, or such lands adjoining the same within government subdivisions, as he was by law entitled to enter and purchase, by preemption; and not to remain in and hold possession thereof, until the said land should be brought into market, and subjected to a public sale; but was unable to make such entry and purchase by preemption, while the said sale and deed of conveyance to the said D. H. Dustin remained outstanding against him, in force and uncancelled. And the said defendant then requested this plaintiff, who was the owner of the said deed, and held the same in possession, to surrender and deliver to him the said deed, the same never having been recorded, to the end that he, the said defendant, might be thereby enabled to purchase and enter the said land by preemption; and the said defendant then and there promised and agreed to and with the plaintiff, that if this plaintiff would surrender and deliver to him...