148 Wis. 186 | Wis. | 1912
Under tbe contract which is tbe basis of' plaintiffs’ cause of action tbe plaintiffs bad tbe exclusive right of sale of tbe lands of defendant until January 1, 1911, and.
The foregoing facts are admitted by the demurrer and constitute a good cause of action against the defendant. Just what damages may be recovered need not be considered and cannot well be until the evidence is in. It is sufficient that
The main contention of respondent is that the writing sets out a selling agency and an option to purchase, and that the option was not binding until accepted, and that it was revoked or withdrawn before accepted, hence plaintiffs never acquired any rights under it. The so-called option feature of the contract cannot be separated from the commission part. Each is dependent upon the other: the covenants are mutual. The covenants of each party to the contract constitute a consideration for the covenants of the other party. The contract is an entirety. The promises are mutual and are a sufficient consideration between the parties to the contract. Hawes v. Woolcock, 26 Wis. 629. Moreover, the contract is under seal, which imports, presumptively at least, a sufficient consideration. Sec. 4195, Stats. (1898); Carey v. Dyer, 97 Wis. 554, 73 N. W. 29; Kuener v. Smith, 108 Wis. 549, 84 N. W. 850. The covenant that defendant should not sell for less than $10 per acre was for the benefit of plaintiffs, because they had an interest in all moneys received on sales above $6 per acre, in case they elected to purchase. Moreover, by the sale at less than $10 per acre the defendant violated the express terms of the contract and disabled plaintiffs from continuing to make sales upon commission. The plaintiffs had the right to purchase all unsold land at any time before January 1, 1911. The defendant could not sell for less than $10 per acre so as to cut off the plaintiffs’ right to purchase; and when it did sell for less, plaintiffs were entitled to the damages occasioned by the breach. But it is argued by respondent that plaintiffs did not exercise their option to purchase. We think the allegations of the complaint show an acceptance of the option in so far as plaintiffs were able to accept. It was not necessary for them to do a vain and useless thing. They allege in their complaint “That said plaintiffs had prepared and were prepared to carry out all of the
Counsel for appellants relies upon implied terms which he argues necessarily flow from the writing though not expressed. We do not find it necessary to pass upon such contention, since we are satisfied that by the express terms of the contract, together with the allegations of the complaint, a good ■cause of action is pleaded.
By the Court. — The order appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings according to law.