Houtz v. Hellman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. Robt. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The contract shown in evidence being unilateral and containing a provision that it should be closed twenty days from February 3d, or earnest money forfeited, time of performance became the essence of the contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. Robt. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The contract shown in evidence being unilateral and containing a provision that it should be closed twenty days from February 3d, or earnest money forfeited, time of performance became the essence of the contract. Unless the purchase money was tendered and demand of a deed made on or before Saturday, February 23, 1906, the right of the plaintiff to require the defendant to perform the contract became ipso facto gone. The contract was a mere option, because the vendee was not bound. Cockrell v. Bopp, 106 Mo. App. 555;…
1Opinion of the CourtLamm, P. J.
Specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. Defendant comes up from a decree for plaintiff.
On February 3, 1906, defendant, a widow, owned a lot fronting on the south side of Pine street, St.' Louis, 21 feet 6 3-4 inches by a depth of 109 feet, with a building thereon known as “1420 Pine.” At that *660time she was in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. Her son, Charles, held a warrant of attorney executed by her in 1892 at Mannheim, Germany, making him the donee of a power to sell and deed said lot — its acknowledgment reading: “Before me, Jno. F. Winter, U. S. Consul at Mannheim,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dysart v. CrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
3Cited by29 opinions
- Diener v. Star-Chronicle Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Shohoney v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Best v. CulhaneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- Allison v. MildredSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Wallach v. JosephSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.