Zamboni v. Graham
| Decision Date | 27 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | 14500. |
| Citation | 88 P.2d 98,104 Colo. 23 |
| Parties | ZAMBONI et al. v. GRAHAM et ux. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to District Court, Grand County; Charles E. Herrick, Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Graham and husband against F. Zamboni and wife and another for specific performance of an oral contract and for conveyance to plaintiffs of five acres of land. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants Zamboni bring error and apply for supersedeas.
Affirmed.
George H. Lerg, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
J. F Schneider, Charles H. Haines, and Lucian M. Long, all of Denver, for defendants in error.
Defendants in error, the Grahams, who are husband and wife, brought action against F. Zamboni and M. Zamboni, also husband and wife, and Henry Allen to enforce specific performance of an alleged oral contract and to compel the conveyance to them of five acres of land, which they contended they had purchased from Zamboni. Judgment below generally was for the Grahams although the court decreed a conveyance of only one and nine-tenths acres for a consideration of $195, which has been deposited with the court. The action was dismissed as to Allen. We are disposed to consider and decide the matter on the application for a supersedeas in fairness to all concerned.
It appears from the record that some time in the fall of 1934, the Grahams learned that Zamboni was the owner of 156 acres of mountain land along Vasquez Creek in Grand county. They were desirous of acquiring a small portion of this tract upon which they proposed to build a home and erect some cabins. Accordingly, they came to Denver where Zamboni lived, called upon him, advised him of their wishes, and inquired as to the price per acre and which he told them was $50. This price was satisfactory and, Graham alleges, he bargained for five acres, saying that he did not have that much money at the time, but was willing to make a down payment of $50. Zamboni declined the offer as made but suggested that the Grahams go back and build themselves a home on the land they desired to purchase, erect some cabins to help pay for the place, and they could give him the purchase price later. The Grahams acted upon this suggestion expecting to pay the $250 at some future time. Apparently nothing was said concerning interest or taxes.
According to Zamboni's statement the arrangement was to be one of landlord and tenant relationship, the Grahams to pay rent, although he does not assert that there was any agreement as to the amount of rental.
No formal contract was ever executed and the only writing in evidence is a letter written to Graham by Zamboni's daughter, Mrs. Leech, at Zamboni's request, which is as follows:
There is no question as to this letter being written, or its having been authorized by Zamboni. In the light of other testimony, it definitely indicates three things: 1. That the Grahams, acting in accordance with something Zamboni had told them did build a home on some of Zamboni's land. 2. That he agreed to protect their rights. 3. That any deal would be satisfactory to him if it did not 'break up the land too badly.'
Three principal defenses are urged to defeat the action: (a) That the alleged contract, if made, was so indefinite and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Chambers
...supra. Jutten v. Deeble, 88 Colo. 301, 295 P. 496. The case at issue here is similar but much stronger than Zamboni v. Graham, 104 Colo. 23 at page 26, 88 P.2d 98, 100. In the latter case this court affirmed a decree of specific performance of land and buildings. There the court ordered con......
-
A & R Co. v. Union Air Transport, Inc.
...of the terms of an oral agreement on which the written agreement is based may take the contract from under the statute. Zamboni v. Graham, 104 Colo. 23, 88 P.2d 98 (1939); Knoff v. Grace, 68 Colo. 527, 190 P. 526 Part performance consists of performing something required by the contract, su......
-
Moller v. Moller
...rights of the wife to support by her husband. The absence in the complaint of the jurisdictional clause is immaterial. Zamboni v. Graham, 104 Colo. 23, 88 P.2d 98. It is concluded that the complaint states a cause of The second cause of demurrer goes to the jurisdiction of the Court to ente......