OCR Text |
Show DECISION IS REVERSED . BY THE SUPREME COURT The supreme court handed dow n an opinion Thursday reversing the Judgment Judg-ment of the district court of Tooele county In the case of Catherine E. Levine and Elizabeth R. Pratt, appellants, appel-lants, against J. W. Whltehouse, Ettlc Wbiiehouso and T. G. Schulte, and remanding re-manding the case to the lower court with instructions to enter judgment lu favor of the plaintiffs. The action was brought to compel the specific performance of u contract of sale of real property In Tixiole county by Whltehouse and his wife to the plain tliYs. The contract was signed by I Louis Levine and Mllando Pratt, as attorneys for their wives, and the I purchase price was to have been j $2.n00, of which amount $700 was I paid in the stock of the Blnshaiu West Dip Tuunel company and the remainder in lustallments of $100 each The contract was dated in 1905 and the plaintiffs defaulted In some of their payments, but before the period of grace expired tendered the lull amount of the contract price, with , Interest. Whltehouse bad sold the ( property again lo Schulte and re-lused re-lused to give deed to the plaintiffs In this iiction. When the case was tried White-house White-house contended that the plaintiffs defaulted In their payments and also failed to pay the taxes on the property, proper-ty, as agreed. It was furthermore contended that Levine and Pratt had misrepresented the value of the stock which they gave in part payment for tho property, and also that neither had any written authority to sign the nsroos of their wives to the contract. The lower court rendered Judgment in favor of Whltehouse and his wife, and an appeal was taken to the supreme su-preme court It Is held ln the opinion opin-ion of tho supreme court that the tender made by tho plaintiffs woa sufficient to entitle thoni to tho specific spe-cific performance of the contract, and that Whltehouse was estopped from claiming fraud in ihe regard to the stock by reason of the fact that h had been a party to tho transaction and hnd accepted some of th bene-fits bene-fits under the agreement of sale. It. is held that tho lower court erred In finding In lavor of defendants and the Judgment Is reversed as stated. Justice McCarty wrote tho opinion, which was concurred in by Chief Justice Jus-tice Straup and Justlco Frlck.. , |