Baldridge v. Centgraf

Citations

• 82 Kan. 240
• 108 P. 83
• 1910 Kan. LEXIS 235

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Contracts — Specific Performance — Grounds. The ground upon which a court, notwithstanding the statute of frauds, may compel the complete performance of an oral contract for the sale of real estate, which has been partly performed, is that such a decree may be necessary in order to avoid injustice toward one who in reliance'upon the agreement has so altered his position that he can not otherwise be afforded adequate relief.</p> <p>2. -Possession Taken with Owner’s Consent. The mere fact that a proposed buyer has taken possession of real estate with the consent of the owner, upon the faith of an oral agreement for its purchase, does not in and of itself avoid the effect of the statute and justify a decree for the specific performance of the contract.</p> <p>3. -Possession and Deposit of Check for Purchase Price. In the absence of any further showing as to the injury that would result to the plaintiff by a denial of that relief, a decree for the specific performance of an oral contract for the sale to him of a dwelling house is not justified by evidence that, having deposited a valid check for the purchase price with a third person, mutually agreed upon, to be delivered upon the execution of a deed, he took possession of the premises by the owner’s permission, but was on the same day served with a notice to vacate.</p> <p>4. Ejectment — Evidence of Plaintiff’s Title — Admissions. In ejectment, where the defendant claims a right of possession only under a contract with the plaintiff for the purchase of the property, evidence of title on the plaintiff’s part becomes immaterial.</p>