Sutherland v. Taintor

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Sutherland v. Taintor

1906 OK 90, 87 P. 900, 17 Okla. 427, 1906 Okla. LEXIS 50

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 6, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1906 OK 90 (Sutherland v. Taintor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sutherland v. Taintor, 1906 OK 90, 87 P. 900, 17 Okla. 427, 1906 Okla. LEXIS 50 (Okla. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Hainer, J.:

It is contended by plaintiff in error that the parol contract which was made the basis of this action was void, and non-enforceable under the statutes of Okla *429 homa, and this is the only question relied upon for a reversal of the cause. This contention cannot be sustained.

The plaintiff in the court below did not rely solely upon the contract, but based his contention upon the ground that the contract was fully executed by the plaintiff, in this, that the consideration was paid, and that the plaintiff was put iu possession of the premises, and immediately commenced to improve the land and make permanent improvements thereon; and hence that the contract was enforceable, although it was merely a parol agreement, and no note or memorandum was made between the parties at the time said contract was entered into. And this was the finding of the trial court, after hearing the evidence that was adduced upon the trial.

In Halsell v. Renfrow, 14 Okla. 674, this court had this question under consideration, and it was there held that:

“A parol agreement for the sale of real estate may be specifically enforced where there has been such part performance of the contract as would make it impracticable to place the parties in their original positions, and thus make it a fraud upon one of the parties not to enforce the agreement.”

And that:

“The payment of the piirchase money is not alone such part performance of an agreement to sell real estate as will authorize a court to enforce its specific performance. But part payment and taking possession in good faith, or taking possession with the knowledge of the vendor and making valuable improvements, constitute such part performance as will ordinarily warrant a court in decreeing specific performance of the contract.”

We think this case is decisive of this question, and that the court was fully' warranted, under the evidence, in decree *430 ing .specific performance. There being no error in.the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed:

Pancoast, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion of the court by

Hainer, J.:

It is contended by plaintiff in error that the parol contract which was made the basis of this action was void, and non-enforceable under the statutes of Okla *429 homa, and this is the only question relied upon for a reversal of the cause. This contention cannot be sustained.

The plaintiff in the court below did not rely solely upon the contract, but based his contention upon the ground that the contract was fully executed by the plaintiff, in this, that the consideration was paid, and that the plaintiff was put iu possession of the premises, and immediately commenced to improve the land and make permanent improvements thereon; and hence that the contract was enforceable, although it was merely a parol agreement, and no note or memorandum was made between the parties at the time said contract was entered into. And this was the finding of the trial court, after hearing the evidence that was adduced upon the trial.

In Halsell v. Renfrow, 14 Okla. 674, this court had this question under consideration, and it was there held that:

“A parol agreement for the sale of real estate may be specifically enforced where there has been such part performance of the contract as would make it impracticable to place the parties in their original positions, and thus make it a fraud upon one of the parties not to enforce the agreement.”

And that:

“The payment of the piirchase money is not alone such part performance of an agreement to sell real estate as will authorize a court to enforce its specific performance. But part payment and taking possession in good faith, or taking possession with the knowledge of the vendor and making valuable improvements, constitute such part performance as will ordinarily warrant a court in decreeing specific performance of the contract.”

We think this case is decisive of this question, and that the court was fully' warranted, under the evidence, in decree *430 ing .specific performance. There being no error in.the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed:

Pancoast, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1906 OK 90, 87 P. 900, 17 Okla. 427, 1906 Okla. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-taintor-okla-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack