24 N.W.2d 80 | Mich. | 1946
Lead Opinion
On January 4, 1944, the following written agreement was made by defendant Etna Ballard and plaintiff Max Cramer:
"I, Etna Ballard, hereby agree to rent my farm to Max Cramer for 1 year beginning February 1, 1944, for $16 a month. He to have the privilege of buying the farm for $3,500 any time during the year, also if he sows fertilizer the first year, he is to have the benefit of it later, or be recompensed for it."
(Signed) "ETNA BALLARD" (Signed) "MAX CRAMER"
Cramer subsequently moved to the farm and paid the rent personally until he went into the army. The farm was then occupied by his brother, with the consent of Mrs. Ballard, and Ford Cramer, the father of Max, paid the rent. On August 1, 1944, Ford Cramer paid $100 to Mrs. Ballard, taking a receipt therefor, reading: "Received of Max Cramer 100, on farm contract."
Ford Cramer testified that he paid this $100 on the purchase price of the farm and that when Mrs. Ballard refused to convey to his son, Max, he deposited the remainder in escrow in the Addison State Bank. A Miss Cleveland, who described herself as a banker, testified in part as follows:
"Mrs. Ballard came there and asked me if there was any money left there for her. She told me she had some arrangement with this young Cramer and *498 she asked if there was money deposited for her. I told her there was, and that my instructions were, if she delivered a deed, to pay her $3,400."
Mrs. Ballard admitted on cross-examination that the farm in question was the only one she owned. Her explanation of the $100 transaction is as follows:
"When Mr. Ford Cramer brought me the $100, he just laid it down and left it. I gave it back to him and told him I did not want to accept it because I did not know whether I was going to sell the place to him. When I gave him that option of buying the place within a year, I did not suppose I had to sell it to him. I did not expect he had to buy it when he was taken into the army, and I did not have any idea that I was going to make him buy the place if he did not want to. I knew that Mr. Cramer was talking for Mr. Max Cramer's benefit at the time because he told me he was."
The circuit judge, citing Ogooshevitz v. Arnold,
197 Mich. 203 , and Cooper v. Pierson,212 Mich. 657 , held that the writing in question "was not complete within itself and therefore barred by the statute of frauds." He determined there was $96 due for rent, and that the $100, now in the hands of the clerk of the court, should be applied against that rental and taxable costs.
The applicable statute, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13413 (Stat. Ann. § 26.908), reads in part as follows:
"Every contract for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of lands, or any interest in lands, shall be void, unless the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and signed by the party by whom the lease or sale *499 is to be made, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized in writing."
Defendant argues that the writing is insufficient, because "it fails to describe properly or identify the premises that are claimed to have been the subject matter of the agreement."
The writing in the Cooper Case did not describe the premises in question, except by certain lot numbers on North Saginaw street. The headnote of that case reads:
"A memorandum for the sale of land, to be sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 11975), must be complete in itself and leave nothing to rest in parol; it must be certain and definite as to the parties, property, consideration, premises, and time of performance."
This court, however, affirmed the determination of the trial judge that the option in question, together with a separate paper, described as a 10-day extension, which repeated the description in the option and added Flint, Michigan, was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Extrinsic evidence was therefore accepted in the Cooper Case to supply the missing designation of the location of the property. This, despite the statement of the trial judge in the Cooper Case, that:
"If one had no information as to the location of the property except what he was able to gather from the face of the option, he would have great difficulty in locating it. It does not appear from the face of the paper in what State, county, city or village it is situate. In order to be of any force in designating the property intended to be conveyed, the option would have to be aided by parol evidence. We must, therefore, conclude that the option, considered by *500 itself, was not sufficiently definite and certain to satisfy the statute."
It must therefore follow that the Cooper Case is questionable authority for the proposition that extrinsic evidence cannot be introduced.
This authority and others stem from Gault v. Stormont,
There is, however, a line of authorities that has its origin inEggleston v. Wagner,
"It is urged that the contract, if any existed, between Charles and Harry, is void under the statute of frauds, because it does not contain a sufficient description of the property. This contention cannot prevail. A governmental description, or a description by metes and bounds, is not required to the validity of a contract for the sale of lands. It is sufficient if the land be described by name so as to be identified by extrinsic evidence not contradictory of the contract. Thus, a description `The Schoolcraft Store,' held sufficient. Francis v. Barry,
The holding in Ogooshevitz v. Arnold,
The rule in Gault v. Stormont,
This is recognized in 49 Am. Jur. pp. 656, 657, as the general rule. In the same text it is also stated that:
"The circumstances that the seller owns only one tract of land which answers the description given in the memorandum operates to render sufficient a description which under other circumstances might be too general to satisfy the statute."
See, also, Michelson v. Sherman,
The decree in the instant case should be vacated and any rents paid since December of 1944 shall apply as a credit towards the purchase price.
The decree is vacated and one may be entered here requiring specific performance of the agreement to sell. Costs of both courts to appellant.
BUTZEL, C.J., and CARR, SHARPE, and REID, JJ., concurred with BUSHNELL, J.
Concurrence Opinion
I agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice BUSHNELL but feel that it should be made plain this conclusion does not overrule Benedek v. Mechanical Products, Inc.,
The statute involved (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13413 [Stat. Ann. § 26.908]) provides that every contract for the sale of lands, or any interest in lands, shall be void unless the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and signed by the party by whom the sale is to be made, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized in writing. The general rule of law is well settled in this State, that in order to satisfy the statute of frauds the memorandum must be complete in itself and leave nothing to rest in parol. Benedek v. Mechanical Products,Inc., supra. There are decisions of this court which support the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice BUSHNELL, that extrinsic testimony is admissible to establish the sufficiency of the description in a memorandum or agreement for sale of real estate to satisfy the statute, and other decisions seemingly to the contrary.
In Eggleston v. Wagner,
"I will sell you my entire rights, title and interest in the lands, buildings, stock, cash and accounts, and all assets whatever, belonging to the business of *504 the Kalamazoo Spring Axle Works, or standing in my name, and bought for the use of said business."
In approving the admission of extrinsic testimony to supplement such a description, the court said (p. 618):
"A further objection is that the proposal did not sufficiently describe the real estate to satisfy the statute of frauds. The general principle is not questioned. The degree of certainty with which the premises must be denoted is defined in many books, and the cases are extremely numerous in which the subject has been illustrated. They are not all harmonious. But they agree in this, that it is not essential that the description have such particulars and tokens of identification as to render a resort to extrinsic aid entirely needless when the writing comes to be applied to the subject-matter. The terms may be abstract and of a general nature, but they must be sufficient to fit and comprehend the property which is the subject of the transaction; so that with the assistance of external evidence, the description, without being contradicted or added to, can be connected with and applied to the very property intended and to the exclusion of all other property."
In Francis v. Barry,
"Upon the first point raised, the writing contains a sufficient description to identify the property. *505 The plaintiff had formerly owned the property, and had conveyed it to defendant's father, and defendant supposed that it had been conveyed to him, and plaintiff [sic] know (knew) nothing to the contrary. Plaintiff's husband appears to have acted for defendant in renting the property, collecting the rent, and remitting it to defendant. And the description contained in the first correspondence as `the Schoolcraft Store,' and referred to by defendant in the same way in his letter of May 14, 1886, is a sufficient designation to convey the property in a deed, and so described would convey the parcel of land upon which the store stood, known, used, and occupied therewith. After having [sic] designed (designated) it in the correspondence as the `Schoolcraft Store,' the subsequent correspondence conveyed a definite meaning when it referred to it as `the property.' Both parties understood what property was meant, and so would a stranger to the parties, and to the property, fully comprehend that the term `property' referred to and meant the Schoolcraft-store property."
In Garvey v. Parkhurst,
It was shown that the vendee went into possession, paid taxes, made improvements, assigned his interest in the land to defendant who went into possession, worked the farm, and made improvements. In holding the description sufficient, the court said (p. 370):
"It is urged that the contract, if any existed, between Charles and Harry, is void under the statute of frauds, because it does not contain a sufficient description of the property. This contention cannot prevail. A governmental description, or a description *506
by metes and bounds, is not required to the validity of a contract for the sale of lands. It is sufficient if the land be described by name so as to be identified by extrinsic evidence not contradictory of the contract. Thus, a description `The Schoolcraft Store,' held sufficient. Francis v. Barry,
McIntosh v. Hopkins,
Mr. Justice WIEST, writing for the court, said (pp. 495, 496):
"The description of the premises was inartistic but sufficient to enable any farmer to locate the premises with certainty. Rows of cherry trees were upon the land, and, to enable plaintiff to get to the `S.E. 20' from his own land, it was agreed to add 20 feet thereto, or, as stated in the contract, `to the middle of the next tree row west of the line running north.'"
The foregoing cases support plaintiff's contention. There is a plethora of decisions in this court wherein a sentence taken alone, without consideration of the circumstances of the case, may be quoted to support the defendant's contention in the instant *507
case, that parol testimony is not admissible to satisfy the statute of frauds. An early example of such a case is Gault v.Stormont,
"Wyandotte, April 26, 1881.
"Received from George Stormont the sum of seventy-five dollars as part of the principal of ten hundred and fifty dollars on sale of my house and two lots on corner of Superior and Second streets in this city."
The question now before us, whether extrinsic testimony is admissible to identify the real estate referred to in the memorandum where such testimony is in accordance with and cannot be contrary to the description, was not there raised. The court said that other terms and provisions could not be added to the memorandum to establish its sufficiency. But in so holding, the court announced the rule (p. 638):
"A memorandum, to be sufficient under the statute, must be complete in itself, and leave nothing to rest in parol."
A like statement of the general law may be found in many other decisions of this court, where the precise question now before us was not raised, although in some of them the issues involved the sufficiency of a memorandum for sale of real estate where an attempt was being made to supplement the memorandum by extrinsic testimony. For example, Webster v. Brown,
In the case before us, the question is not presented as to whether extrinsic testimony may be received *508 to add terms, provisions or conditions to the memorandum. The issue here is limited to whether such testimony is admissible to supplement the description of the real estate where such evidence is not contradictory or inconsistent with the description. There is no claim here that the parol testimony contradicted the description in the memorandum. It merely supplemented it.
There are decisions of this court which may seem to be inconsistent with the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice BUSHNELL. Most of them may be reconciled. In Miller v. Beardslee,
In Cooper v. Pierson,
Atlas v. Gunsberg Packing Co.,
The case of Windiate v. Leland,
"Pontiac, Michigan, "$200.00 July 21, 1920.
"Received from Frank Tyack, two hundred and no-100 dollars to apply on the purchase price of land at Silver Lake, payment to begin November 1, *510 1920; purchase price agreed on eight thousand dollars.
"JOHN WINDIATE, "Per L.M. EATON,"
it was held that "land at Silver Lake" was not a sufficient description to satisfy the statute of frauds. Decision was mainly on other grounds and the equities were plainly against the parties seeking to enforce the option. The precise question now before us was not raised in that case.
An exception to the general rule, that the memorandum must be complete in itself without resort to other testimony, is not new in the decisions. It was made in decisions hereinbefore cited and discussed, and also in Beltsman v. Sherman,
We are mindful of the fact that this is a case in equity. The statute of frauds exists in the law for the purpose of preventing fraud or the opportunity for fraud, not as an instrumentality to be used in aid of fraud or as a stumbling block in the path of justice. While no fraud is alleged or proven in this case, an attempt is made to rely upon the statute and thereby to defeat the undisputed intent of these parties, and this in a chancery court.
In 1943, Mr. Justice NORTH wrote for the court in Boelter v.Blake,
"Careful consideration of this record as a whole brings the conclusion that the equities are all in favor of plaintiffs, and that the contract was performed by the plaintiffs with the knowledge of the defendants to the extent equity requires plaintiffs be decreed specific performance. In this jurisdiction there are many decisions to the effect that although oral agreements to convey land are void under the statute of frauds above cited (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13413 [Stat. Ann. § 26.908]), yet under the related section of the statute (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13415 [Stat. Ann. § 26.910]) a court of equity has the power to grant specific performance of agreements of which there has been part performance; and such relief should be granted when as between the parties an equitable result will thereby be accomplished. Willard v. Shekell,
To the extent that our previous decisions may be considered inconsistent with this opinion, on the specific question as to admissibility of extrinsic testimony to supplement a description in a memorandum for sale of real estate, or an interest therein, for the purpose of identifying the property, not contradictory or inconsistent with the memorandum description, but merely to show that no other property could have been in contemplation, it must be understood that the court now declines to follow such decisions.
For the above reasons, I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice BUSHNELL.
BUTZEL, C.J., and CARR, REID, and NORTH, JJ., concurred with BOYLES, J. STARR, J., took no part in the decision of this case. *512