Peterson v. Hicks

Citations

• 43 Wash. 412
• 86 P. 634
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 719

Syllabus

<p>Feauds, Statute of — Contract to Convey Land — Part Performance. Where the plaintiffs, having an advantageous contract to buy real premises and being unable to raise the price, entered into an oral contract whereby defendant agreed to advance the price, take title and give a bond for a deed, in consideration of a return of tbe advance plus one hundred dollars within one year, there was such a part performance of the oral agreement as to take the case out of the operation of the statute of frauds, where 'the plaintiffs took peaceable possession and made improvements by papering rooms and repairing buildings.</p> <p>Trusts — Constructive Fraud — Specific Performance — Statute of Frauds. Where defendant advances money and takes title to premises purchased at a profit by the plaintiffs, agreeing orally to make a bond for a deed to them in consideration of the repayment of a certain sum within one year, which premises the defendant could have secured in no other way, a constructive fraud arises, upon defendant’s refusing to make the bond for a deed, sufficiently to create a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiffs, which would not fall within the statute of frauds, regardless of the taking of possession by the plaintiffs; and specific performance of the oral agreement will he decreed.</p> <p>Principal and Agent — Husband and Wife — Ratification. Where the defendant’s wife avails herself of an oral contract made by her husband whereby she invested her separate property in real estate in ignorance of the terms of the agreement, she cannot ratify his acts in part, retaining the property, and at the same time deny his authority to make the agreement and refuse to carry out its terms.</p>