Thompson v. Craft

Citations

• 238 Pa. 125
• 85 A. 1107
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 933

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Specific performance — Option to sell coal — Condition— Refusal of wife to sign deed — Construction of written instruments.</p> <p>1. On a bill in equity to compel the specific performance of a contract to sell coal underlying defendant’s land, it appeared that about a year prior to the filing of the bill the defendant had given an option in writing on the coal in question to a third person, conditioned that if defendant’s wife refused to sign the deed “this option shall be null and void.” Subsequently the defendant extended and renewed the option to the optionee for two short periods of time. Within the period covered by the second extension the optionee assigned his interest to the plaintiff, endorsing the assignment on the option and reciting in the assignment the second extension, and the fact that he had received ten dollars from the plaintiff. The defendant had full knowledge of this assignment, and the same day that it was made the plaintiff wrote on the back of the option a notice addressed to defendant to the effect that he had accepted the option. On the same day the defendant endorsed on the option the following acceptance: “I hereby accept notice of the acceptance of within option and contract of sale is made absolute, and I acknowledge receipt ,of ten dollars from defendant (naming him) on account of purchase money.” The signatures of both plaintiff and defendant to these endorsements were followed by seals. Defendant’s wife always refused to sign the deed for the coal, but plaintiff was always willing to accept a deed from defendant subject to the dower interest of the latter’s wife. Meld, (1) that the sale of the coal from the defendant to the plaintiff was an absolute one, and not conditional on the wife’s signature; and (2) that plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance against defendant to compel him to convey his own interest in the coal.</p> <p>2. In such a case the word “absolute” in the acceptance by defendant is no