Stigler v. Jaap
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Holmes county. HoN. A. M. Byrd, Chancellor. Stigler, appellant, was complainant, and Jaap and others, ap-pellees, defendants, in the court below. In January, 1900, O. 0. Jaap borrowed $2,000 from Mrs. T. W. Stigler through her husband and agent, G. W. Stigler, and gave a deed of trust on some lots in the town of Lexington, Miss.,-to secure same.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Holmes county. HoN. A. M. Byrd, Chancellor. Stigler, appellant, was complainant, and Jaap and others, ap-pellees, defendants, in the court below. In January, 1900, O. 0. Jaap borrowed $2,000 from Mrs. T. W. Stigler through her husband and agent, G. W. Stigler, and gave a deed of trust on some lots in the town of Lexington, Miss.,-to secure same. By the terms of the deed of trust Jaap agreed to give Mrs. T. W. Stigler “the refusal of the purchase” of the lots in case he desired to sell. Jaap afterwards expressed a desire to sell the lots, and informed G. W. Stigler…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, C. J.
The suit of clothes formed no part of the consideration for the option. It was part of the purchase price of the lots, as shown by Stigler’s own testimony to the interrogatory 2, on page 46 of the record. This is Jaap’s testimony also, shown by his answer to interrogatory 21, on page 121 of the record. Since both Stigler and Jaap say that the suit of clothes was part of the purchase price of the lots, and no part of the consideration for the option, and since the $10 recited in the option as the only consideration were not paid, it is perfectly clear that the contract for the option was based…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nevitt v. Bank of Port GibsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1846
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kay v. SpencerWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- Holifield v. Veteran's Farm & Home BoardMississippi Supreme Court · 1953
- Morrison v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921