The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1897-11-03
THE WELIINGTON ENTERPRsE WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 1s97

void ut her option. That gave her an
opportunity, if they failed to pay, to
treat it as void or require of the Man
ufacturing Co. specific performance,
compelling it to carry out the con-
tract.
| The Manufacturing Co. failed en-
tirely to meet its obligations under
this contract Mary became insane
There was meeting. before there was
any legal guardian appointed for
Mary, between the president of the
Manufacturing Co., and Della and
Tilden, and Tilden and Della, so far
as they could represent Mary in that
matter, refused To carry cut the con-
tract and exercised for Mary the
option, and the whole conversation
goes to show, and all that was done
goes to show that the option in them
was exercised that Mary would no
longer abide by this contract, that she
would treat it as void; there would be
nothing binding in that, except that
the Warwick Co. was represented by
one whom they thought had ample
power to act in this whole matter
The president, general manager and
attorney of this company, and who so
far as the evidence shows was almost
the company ITSELF this person was
there and he went forward and COM
menced a deal as though the contract
for $1,000, which was made by Mary
was ended entirely.
He, then, treating with Della, repre-
senting herself and representing Mary
so far as she could and Judge Tilden
with her, although they had no legal
authority to represent Mary, under
took to make new contract. A con-
tract was made for $4,000. Arrange
ments we're made for fulfilling it and
carrying it out So that while this was
not strictly binding through out, so far
as any one represented Mary, yet upon
the authority that they did have, the
Manufacturing Co. saw fit to treat the
$1,000 contract as void and entered up
on new negotiations. These ne
gotiations never amounted to any
thing, nothing was ever done.
A guardian was appointed for Mary.
that guardian acted under the legal
advice of Tilden, the time passed on
until in December. In the mean time
a receiver had been appointed. We
think that cuts no figure in this matter
at all.
The receiver was under the same OBJ
legations to secure this property, if he
had any contract or any obligation by
which he could secure it, that the
owners were under before he was ap-
pointed. 1t was matter entirely in
~, of hn
court that appointed him, and If it was
necessary to save the property that he
was appointed to care for, then it be-
came preeminently that the duty of
that court to take all necessary steps
to secure any rights that the company
had in that property; but nothing was
done. 1t went along till December
when the guardian of Mary, and
Della acting for herself, exercised it
again in a lega, manner this time,
their option and treated the $l300 con-
tract entirely void tE selling the prop
erty to the Horrs. Although when a
party has an option to treat contract
as void after failing on the other
party's part, he still has binding con-
tract it is not necessary to exercise
that option in any particular manner.
The rights of the other party are gone.
All that remains is simply the right to
exercise the option on behalf of the
seller.
Now this option was exercised
clearly in selling this property to the
Horrs, if it had not been legally exer-
cised before, and the property was sold
to the Horrs for $4,000, and the Horrs
: are here claiming the property. Under
} their brief they do not exactly claim
the entire property, but they claim a
part, at least the value of the land, the
amount they put in.
Now as to the land, the Horrs COM
plain they are the owners of that six
acres. The Manufacturing Co. has
put upon it the structures and i'm
} provements. The only evidence we have
as to the real value of this property Is
what the Horrs paid for it, and what
the owners accepted for it. There was
therefore a contract made for $1,000,
/ but it was made by young lady who
knew very little about business, and
probably not very much about this par
, ticular property. She might have
had some idea what the entire
property was worth, but as to six acres
carved out of it she would have but
little idea what it was worth in all
likelihood. A contract was obtained
for $500 for this land, but that was re-
} pudiated by the owners thoroughly
evidently not regarding it as its true
} value. They did afterwards make a
| contract to sell it for $1,000, but then il
had become mixed up in lawsuit, OF
J with trouble; something had been
built upon it. They would naturally
| shrink from any future trouble with
: the Manufacturing Company. We
J think the only standard in this case is
what was paid for it by the Horrs. II
! was a privilege of the lien-holders and
t the other parties to this case, if they
r were not satisfied with that price fol
} the land to have shown what is its rea
. value.
5 1t is impossible for us in selling thi'
r property to have this land appraised
l separately from the improvements tina
I are upon it. That cannot be done; thu
r improvements cannot be sold sepa
: rately; they cannot be moved off the!
: would be worth nothing. The land il
r encumbered it has been changed
Q they cannot be separated.
Q No evidence has been offered as II
S the real value OF this property, and thu
: best that can be done in the case is Il
take the value that has been estab
lished in this way. We think, there
t fore. the Horrs are entitled to 5000
8 out Of this property when it is sold
o and we are going to decree that i
: shall be sold.
q Now, as to these liens. The re
4 ceiver encumbered this property will
8 loans made through the court, and b,