Matteson v. Scofield
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for St. Croix County. Action to compel a specific performance of a contract to sell and convey land. On the 1st of December, 1867, defendant was the owner in fee of the northeast quarter of S. 5, T. 28 N., R. 19 W., in said county. He was then, and continued to the trial of this action to be, an unmarried man, and residing in the state of Connecticut.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for St. Croix County. Action to compel a specific performance of a contract to sell and convey land. On the 1st of December, 1867, defendant was the owner in fee of the northeast quarter of S. 5, T. 28 N., R. 19 W., in said county. He was then, and continued to the trial of this action to be, an unmarried man, and residing in the state of Connecticut. On the 29th of January, 1868, at Darien, in said state of Connecticut, he mailed the following letter, directed to the plaintiff at Hudson, Wisconsin: “ Sir : I received your letter stating that you did not feel…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
According to our view, the letter of the defendant, dated January 29th, 1868, contained an offer to sell his land on the terms therein specified. This offer was unconditionally accepted by the plaintiff, as appears from his letter dated February 8th, 1868. These letters constituted a valid and binding agreement between the parties, which a court of equity will specifically perform.
It was insisted by the counsel for the defendant, that the correspondence did not show that the contract had been actually concluded and agreed upon in all its parts, but that it still rested to some extent upon…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Curtis Land & Loan Co. v. Interior Land Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Felch v. HooperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Kreutzer v. LynchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- George v. ConhaimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Baker v. HoltWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.