Thornton v. Kelly
| Decision Date | 03 March 1877 |
| Citation | 11 R.I. 498 |
| Parties | WILLIAM E. THORNTON v. JOHN KELLY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Memorandum of contract as follows: " I hereby agree to sell J. K. the house and lot situated on L. Street, second lot east of C. Street, on north side of L. Street, for the sum of ($7,000) seven thousand dollars, and agree to give a satisfactory deed on or before the first day of September next, and hereby acknowledge the receipt of ten dollars on account of above sale.
In an action by W. E. T. against J. K.:-
Held, that the memorandum was sufficient to bind J. K.
ASSUMPSIT heard by the court, jury trial being waived. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
George H. Browne, for the plaintiff, claimed that the contract is sufficient to bind the defendant, because the note or memorandum declared on and produced in evidence is in writing, is signed by the party sought to be charged, and shows the terms of the contract. That the defendant understood them, and meant to be bound by them, is evidenced by his signing. Blakesly v. Smith, 11 Sim. 150; Johnson v. Dodgson, 2 M. & W. 653; Sanderson v. Jackson, 2 Bos. & Pul. 238; Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. & S. 286; Hawkins v. Chace, 19 Pick. 502; Penniman v. Hartshorn, 13 Mass. 87.
C. S. & C. Bradley, for the defendant, contended that the memorandum sets forth a contract by the plaintiff only. The defendant does not in terms make any contract on his part. His signature may import merely the receipt of the offer. At all events his name does not describe a contract binding on him. The statement of a contract by the other party is not a statement of a contract by him. The statute requires the terms of the contract binding upon the party to be charged to be in writing as well as his signature. Browne on the Statute of Frauds, 3d ed. § 374, and cases cited; Osborne v. Phelps, 19 Conn. 73; Nichols v. Johnson, 10 Conn. 198; Champion v. Plummer, 1 Bos. & Pul. 252.
The cases which allow the non-signing party to sue do not make him liable as defendant.
WM. E. THORNTON.
JOHN KELLY.
" PROVIDENCE, August 7, 1872."
After the refusal of the defendant to take and pay for the land, the plaintiff sold it at public auction for $6,000, having notified the defendant of the sale. The plaintiff claims to recover in this action the difference between the stipulated price and the auction price, less the ten dollars paid on account, with interest and the expenses of the sale, by way of damages. The defendant made no contest upon the facts, but contended that the action could not be sustained under the statute of frauds, Gen. Stat. R.I. cap. 193, § 8, the written memorandum being insufficient to charge him.
We think the action lies. The memorandum gives the terms of a complete contract. It identifies the land to be sold; the price to be paid for it; the party who sells it; and the party to pay for and receive it. It is said it imports merely an offer, not an agreement. The language is, " I agree to sell." The word " agree" is sometimes used to signify an offer merely; but, properly speaking, it imports concurrence or assent. It clearly imports concurrence here; for the memorandum goes on to acknowledge the receipt of ten dollars " on account of above sale . There can be no sale on the one side unless there is also a purchase on the other. The word " sale" necessarily imports concurrence or agreement. It shows, then, that the contract between these parties was complete, and that it only remained to carry it into effect.
The memorandum is, however, peculiar, and deserves to be further considered. It is signed by both the plaintiff and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent v. Stevenson
... ... v. Abrahams, 88 Cal. 245, 26 P. 99, 22 A. R. R. 301; see also ... Hamilton v. England, 95 C. J. 693, 22 S.E. 697; ... Thornton v. Kelly, 11 R. L. 498, 39 Cyc. 1193, 39 ... Cyc. page 1207; Ferguson v. Gentzendaner, 98 Tex ... 310, 83 S.W. 374; Butler v. Ohear (S. C.) 1 ... ...
-
UXB Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Rosenfeld Concrete Corp.
...Farnsworth on Contracts § 6.7, at 136 (1990). Accord Pamfiloff v. Giant Records, Inc., 794 F.Supp. 933, 936 (N.D.Cal.1992); Thornton v. Kelly, 11 R.I. 498, 500 (1877); Restatement (Second) Contracts § 131 (1981). See FMC Finance Corp. v. Reed, 592 F.2d 238, 242-43 (5th Cir.1979). A contract......
-
Hillman v. Hodag Chemical Corp.
...Co. v. Whitcomb, 225 Ill. 605, 80 N.E. 247, 8 L.R.A., N.S., 1004; Illinois Life Insurance Co. v. Beifeld, 184 Ill.App. 582, 592; Thornton v. Kelly, 11 R.I. 498.) It is our opinion the contract imposed mutual obligations, and that the trial court erred in holding to the Since the question of......
-
Sholovitz v. Noorigian
...as a reason that the writing failed to express an agreement on the part of the defendant to convey the land to the plaintiff. Thornton v. Kelly, 11 R. I. 498, was an action brought to recover damages of the defendant for refusing to take and pay for a house and lot which the plaintiff alleg......