Wright v. Pucket

• Decision Date: 06 July 1872
• Citation: 63 Va. 370
• Parties: WRIGHT v. PUCKET.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

63 Va. 370

WRIGHT v. PUCKET.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

July 6, 1872

Absent, ANDERSON, J.

In a suit by the purchaser, for the specific performance of a parol agreement for the sale of land, it must appear; 1st. That the parol agreement relied on is certain and definite in its terms. 2d. The acts proved in part performance must refer to, result from, or be made in pursuance of the agreement proved. 3d. The agreement must have been so far executed that a refusal of full execution would operate a fraud upon the party, and place him in a situation which does not lie in compensation. And no one of these conditions appears in this case.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Russell county brought in July 1868, by George W. Pucket against Milton Wright, the brother and only heir at law of Harvey Wright deceased, to enforce the specific performance of a parol contract, which the plaintiff alleged was made by said Harvey Wright and himself, in relation to land. The bill sets out that Harvey Wright, the uncle of the plaintiff, a good many years since, purchased a tract of land on Jessee's mill creek, in the county of Russell. That the land was unimproved, and then of little value; and that Wright was then a feeble old man, without means to bring the land into cultivation. That plaintiff was then young and unmarried; and Harvey Wright telling the plaintiff that he would have to sell part of the land to improve the residue, and that he would rather sell it to the plaintiff than to any one else proposed to him that if the plaintiff would come and help him to improve his land, he should have part of it at his (Wright's) death, and should be well compensated out of the land for his labor. To this the plaintiff agreed. That it was not at that time agreed fully, what part of the land plaintiff should have, only he was to be well compensated for his labor in part of the land; but the said Wright was to retain the possession and control of the whole land during his life. That plaintiff entered faithfully and diligently upon the execution of his part of the contract, and continued faithfully to labor upon the land, clearing and improving it for about eight years, and did improve the land so that it rendered to said Wright during his life a fair support.

The bill further states that the plaintiff then married and settled on land adjoining the land of Wright, on the east side of the creek; and by the direction of said Wright, enclosed within his own fence a large portion of the land lying east of the creek, and cleared and cultivated a part of it, for which he paid no rent, and he had kept it so enclosed ever since, though the said Wright used it in common with the plaintiff to turn his stock in when he chose, but telling the plaintiff that was a part of the land which he was to have as compensation for his labor as aforesaid; and the said Wright afterwards laid off and designated all that portion of the land that lies east of the creek as the part which the plaintiff was to have in fulfilment of said contract; and with this the plaintiff was satisfied. That plaintiff took no writing from said Wright, having the fullest confidence in him that he would carry out what he agreed to do; but said Wright died suddenly, without making any disposition of his property, or any writing conveying the land to the plaintiff. And making Milton Wright a party defendant, he asks for a specific execution of the contract.

The defendant appeared and demurred to the bill; but the court overruled the demurrer; and he then answered, denying the contract set up in the bill, and calling for strict proof.

The evidence in the cause was wholly parol, and somewhat contradictory. One witness says, she was present and heard Harvey Wright say to Pucket, that if he would come and help improve the farm, he should have a part of the land. And on that offer Puckett came and worked with Wright a part of the time for six or eight years. And since Pucket had so worked, she had heard Wright say that a part of his farm was to be Pucket's. Another witness said, she was present at the same interview, and she heard Wright state to said Pucket that he, the said Wright, was not able to work his farm, and that he would have to give a part of it to get it improved, and that he would rather let said Pucket have it than any one else; and that upon that offer, at the time Wright moved to his farm Pucket came with him, and worked for Wright six or eight years. And she heard Wright say, shortly before his death, that at his death Pucket would get a part of his land. Another witness says that about twelve months before Harvey Wright's death, he told witness that Pucket was always good to do anything he, said Wright, asked him to do, and that he intended Pucket to have his land on the east side of the creek. Another witness said he heard the plaintiff ask Harvey Wright where he should run a fence on the east side of the creek, and the reply of Wright was to run where he pleased--that it would all be said Pucket's some day. This was about eighteen years previous to the giving the deposition in 1869; and plaintiff has fenced up some thirty-five or forty acres of said land, and has been cultivating a portion of it some eighteen years. And another witness says, in answer to a question by the plaintiff in reference to a mill seat on the land east of the creek, that she heard Harvey Wright say to the plaintiff, after me the land is yours. On the other hand, there was proof that in 1859 or 1860 Pucket proposed to buy some of the land on the east side of the creek, and Wright refused to sell it; and that whilst Wright's grave was digging Pucket said he (Wright) had neither willed the land nor sold it. There is some other evidence, but the foregoing is all that seems to bear upon the question of the contract.

The cause came on to be heard upon the 14th of May 1870, when the court decreed that the defendant, Milton Wright, do execute a deed, with special warranty, to the plaintiff for all the land in the bill mentioned, formerly owned by Harvey Wright lying on the east side of Jessee's mill creek, and that the plaintiff recover his costs against the defendant. From this...