McCoy v. Kessler
McCoy v. Kessler
Opinion of the Court
The facts as alleged in the petition are substantially as follows: On March 10, 1927, the plaintiffs, W. E. McCoy and Elliott McCoy, agreed to purchase from J. "W. Kessler 106-1/2 acres of described land belonging to Kessler, in Appling County, for $1800. Plaintiffs paid on-the purchase-price of the property $725. On October 2, 1927, Kessler executed and delivered to plaintiffs his bond for title, binding the obligor to convey the property to the purchasers in consideration of the sum already paid, and of the balance of $1175 represented by promissory notes dated October 2, 1927, for $100 each, due at intervals of sixty days thereafter, and one note for $75 due December 2, 1929, all the notes being-payable to the order of J. W. Kessler. Plaintiffs were induced to buy the property upon the assurance of Kessler, who is the son of Mrs. McCoy, one of the plaintiffs, that βhe would never foreclose said bond for titles, but would allow petitioners to pay for the property as they might find it possible under the circumstances of their financial condition in the future. That, notwithstanding the verbal agreement, when petitioners made default in the payments on said property the said Kessler placed said notes in the hands of an attorney at law for the purpose of foreclosing same. That pending foreclosure proceedings, however,' the said Kessler voluntarily agreed, upon being reminded of his promise not to foreclose, that if petitioners would surrender to .him said bond for titles, he would cancel said agreement to purchase,1 and, as soon as he could find another pirrchaser for said property, he would refund to petitioners all the money they had paid under the agreement, to wit, the sum of $725, and return said notes for the balance due. That said Kessler at said time also enlisted the services of your petitioner, W. E. McCoy, to assist him" in getting a purchaser for said property. That, acting upon this agreement for refund and the return of said notes, petitioners turned over said bond to said Kessler, and did
Taking the facts alleged in the petition to be true on demurrer, they set out an equitable cause of action, and the court erred in dismissing the petition on general demurrer. The petition alleges an agreement between the parties, whereby the plaintiffs relinquished their bond for titles to the defendant and their equity in the land in controversy, upon the express promise of Kessler to refund the money which had been paid to Kessler on the purchase-price as soon as he could resell the land. He did resell, according to the petition, and refused to refund, although petitioners had surrendered their bond for title. In these circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled to the equitable relief prayed for, if they sustain their allegations by proof upon the trial of the case.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- McCOY v. KESSLER
- Status
- Published