Timmerman Bros., Inc. v. Quigley

• Decision Date: 30 March 1977
• Docket Number: No. 40832,40832
• Citation: 198 Neb. 129,251 N.W.2d 877
• Parties: TIMMERMAN BROS., INC., a Nebraska Corporation, Appellant, v. Stanley QUIGLEY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 877

251 N.W.2d 877

198 Neb. 129

TIMMERMAN BROS., INC., a Nebraska Corporation, Appellant, v. Stanley QUIGLEY et al., Appellees.

No. 40832.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 30, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An unambiguous contract is not subject to interpretation or construction, and the intent of the parties must be determined from its contents.

2. A contract will be construed most strongly against the party preparing it when there is a question as to its meaning.

Ronald D. Mousel, McCook, for appellant.

Sarah Jane Cunningham of Cunningham Law Office, P. C., McCook, for appellees.

Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON and BRODKEY, JJ.

McCOWN, Justice.

The plaintiff, Timmerman Bros., Inc., brought this proceeding against the defendants to obtain an equitable owner's share of the proceeds of a wheat crop harvested by defendants from land sold to the plaintiff by defendants. The District Court entered judgment for the defendants and plaintiff has appealed.

In the spring of 1973, the plaintiff, Timmerman Bros., Inc., decided to purchase certain lands located near McCook, Nebraska, for the operation of a commercial feedlot. The land consisted of several tracts owned by several different owners. Plaintiff prepared a form of real estate purchase agreement and began to negotiate and submit purchase and sale agreements to the various owners. Plaintiff hoped to close the various purchases and begin construction in late summer of 1973. By June 27, 1973, all the landowners had signed real estate purchase agreements with plaintiff. The defendants signed a purchase agreement form June 8, 1973. The agreement was executed by the plaintiff on June 20, 1973, and mailed to the defendants' attorney on July 5, 1973.

The agreement provided that defendants would furnish an abstract showing good and marketable title within 15 days, and that closing was to be 15 days after the sellers had furnished an acceptable abstract. The agreement recited that other parcels of land were being purchased also and gave the plaintiff the right to declare the agreement null and void in the event it was unable to close the purchases on all the parcels of land. The agreement also provided that plaintiff was to have possession of the land at the closing, subject to specific provisions for growing crops. Title difficulties arose in connection with some of the tracts of land other than the defendants' and closing was deferred. Plaintiff obtained permission for an early entry to commence construction. Construction began July 15, 1973, but none of the construction was on the particular part of the land involved here.

On August 20, 1973, defendant, Anna Quigley, received an advance payment of $10,000 on the purchase price to permit her to make a payment on a new home. As security for the advance, the defendants signed a deed to the property and deposited it with their attorney to be held until the actual closing.

In August 1973, the defendant, Stanley Quigley, and his son prepared the 79.2 acres of wheat ground for planting by disking and fertilizing it. In late August 1973, Stanley talked to one of the officers of the plaintiff and told him that if the contract was not closed by September 1, 1973, he was going to plant the wheat and have possession of the wheat ground. On September 2 or 3, 1973, the defendant, Stanley Quigley, planted the wheat.

The...