Collins v. Roddy
Collins v. Roddy
Opinion of the Court
The defendant brought an action of ejectment against the plaintiffs to recover the possession of certain real estate in Otoe county, and judgment was rendered in his favor.
It appears from the record that the plaintiffs were in possession of the premises in controversy under the following contract: u. This agreement and contract of sale, made this 9th day of July, 1881, between Patrick Roddy, late of Ontario, Canada, now of Otoe county, Nebraska, of the first part, and Patrick Collins and James Collins of the second part, witnesseth: That in consideration of one dollar in hand paid, and of the conditions herein set forth, said Patrick Roddy has bargained and sold to second parties for the full sum of four thousand dollars, 'the following, lands and premises, to-wit: The west one-half (J) of section twenty-three (23), in township nine (9) north,
This contract was duly signed by both parties. The testimony shows that the plaintiffs took possession of the premises in question in the spring of 1882, and cultivated and improved the same; that they set out an orchard on the land at a cost of more than $60; that they built a board and wire fence thereon at a cost of nearly $50; that they broke up twenty acres, át a cost of $50; and dug a well and put up a wind-mill to pump water, at an expense of $125. It also appears that-on January 27, 1883, they paid the taxes on the land for the year 1882. The testimony tends to show that in July, 1883, apparently after the 9th, but before the 27th, the date not being given, the defendant was pressing the plaintiffs for the interest then due, and sent an attorney to endeavor to make an arrangement'for its.payment, and a time was fixed when the plaintiffs and defendant were to meet to consider the mat
It will be observed that the contract requires the interest to be paid annually, and provides that if the second party fails to keep taxes and interest paid for the space of two years—not two years’ interest and taxes—then the contract to be null and void. The contract is dated July 9, 1881, hence the first payment of interest would be due on the 9th of July, 1882. By the terms of the contract the plaintiffs had two years from this time in which to make payment; nor could the defendant declare a forfeiture before the expiration of that time. There was doubtless a good reason for this provision—as that the land was to a considerable extent uncultivated and unproductive. But whatever the motive, it is clear that {he contract was not subject to forfeiture when this action was commenced. The action therefore is premature. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Patrick Collins and James Collins, in error v. Patrick Roddy, in error
- Status
- Published