The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-29
JUDGES AND JUSTICE.
An Important Decision by
Judge Sanford.
THE SUPREME COURT TODAY
Adultery-Police Court and
Probate Court Matters.

Quietude reigned around and about
the Third District Court room, and the
buzz of the reporters in search for news
was drowned by the noise of hammer
and plane used in Transforming the
law library into an Office for Clerk
Clarke, and in opening up another
room, which will be added to the
judges chambers.
Judge SANFORD, however, filed one
decision. Itwas to the following effect
l. P. KELSEY ct AL. VS.. W. j. eRowTHER
1T AL.
The plaintiffs allege that the defend
ant Crowther was the owner of land in
Salt Lake County, and on September
ID, 1887, he agreed to sell the same to
the plaintiff Kelsey for 50 750, and to
execute warranty: deed therefor; that
an abstract of the title was to be fur
nished by him to the plaintiffs; that on
the 14th day of October the plaintiffs
rendered the money then unpaid to the
defendant and demanded deed, which
was refused, and that no conveyance
had been made 20 them. 1t is further
alleged that the plaintiffs are read Y
and willing to pay the balance of the
money The answer of the defendants
denies, among other matters, the al
legged tender of $2,700, on October 14th,
1887, or at any other time The con-
tract which the plaintiffs seek to have
enforced is set out in the complaint.
Although signed by the defendant,
Crowther, only, it is q valid contract,
and such as may be enforced in equity.
1t appeared on the trial that on October
18th, 1887, one day after the day agreed
upon for the completion of the pur-
chase, the defendant Crowther drove
to the place of business of Kelsey and
calling him out to the sidewalk, had a
conversation with him, one standing
neal he office door, the otner sitting
in his carriage, nine, ten or twelve
feet distant. In this conversation
CroWther asked for his money; the
other replied he had forgotten
about it. and desiredsto make change
in tee terms OF the contract, which was
refused. Thereupon Kelsey brought
from his Office what looked like bag,
and said he would take the premises.
What the contents of the bag were was
not shown to Crowther, no attempt be-
ing made then or later to pay over the
purchase price il cash. This, it is
urged, constitutes q tender of the
money.
The delay of single day to tender
the amount due was excused by the
d PENDANTS demand for it on the subse
quent day, and it may be doubted
he 81
of any Importance. ray lor vs.. Long
worth, IA, Peters 122, ana cases cited.)
L is well settled that in order to con-
stitute a violent tender, it must be
shown that there was an actual pro-
dLctjon of the money and an actual
Offer of it. 1t is not enough that the
party rendering have the money in his
pocket, or in an envelope retained in
his possession. There must be an &C
tual offer and presentation, SO that it
may be accepted and rejected. In this
case the proof does not sustain the
plaintiff allegations of a tender within
the legal definition of the word, which
means that the money must be
actually produced and paid down,
unless the creditor dispenses with this
being done by some act equivalent to a
WaY9r.
Until there is valid and legal tender,
the defendant cannot be required to de-
liver his deed.
Without considering any other que =
ton, the conclusion is reached that the
plaintiffs have not made out case for
the exercise of the equitable powers of
the court.
The complaint must be dismissed,
with judgment for the defendants.
ro-DAY's BUSINESS.
The Supreme Court meets again this
morning. The following cases will come
up:
L. P. Kelsey vs. George D. Piper.
FL. Kiesel i Co. VS.. the Union Paci-
fc Railroad Company.
McCord d Nave Mercantile Company
VS.. john Glenn.