The Newtown bee. (Newtown, Conn.) 1877-current, 1906-01-12

the estate of James M. Crosby, who
died in Massachusetts in June, 1900
About three years previous Staub and
Crosby entered into an agreement by
which the former was to sell to the
latter for $4,000 property consisting
Of certain shares of the capital stock
of the Falls Village Water Company,
Of the charter and franchises Of the
New Milford Water Power Company,
and of certain rights in real estate, and
in water rights.
Crosby paid $50, 900 before the con-
tract was executed and he agreed to
pay SlO,O upon its execution, $4,000
on or before July l, 1897, and the re-
mainder on or before December l, 1897.
In February, 1900, when Crosby was
i'll, Staub Informed him that he was
then ready to carry out the agree
ment. Crosby asked for an extension
OF time, promising to pay a certain
note of his made to the defendent and
then in the hands of third party, and
the defendant agreed to extend the
time for the performance of the con-
tracts for 30 days from February %,
1900. Crosby did not pay the note and
did not carry out the contract.
After bis death, Mrs Crosby called
upon Staub to learn the amount due
and whether she could have time in
which to pay it. Staub told her that
as the limit of time given to her hus-
band had expired, his heirs had no in
terest in the property, but that if the
amount was paid within 30 days he
would, unless the property was sold In
the meantime, convey it to CrOSby'S
heirs. Mrs Crosby did not make the
payment and the property was sold.
Demand was later made for the return
of the money paid by Crosby, but
Staub declined to pay.
The defendant claimed In the lower
court that upon Crosby's default he
to keep the property and the purchase
money, too. The superior court over
ruled this claim and held that as the
defendant had made no claim for dam
ages on account of the plaintiffs de-
fault, the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover the money paid the defendant,
with interest. The supreme court
opinion says that the view of the law
embodied in the claim of the defend
ant that the plaintiff should lose the
purchase money paid, although the
contract contained no clause of forfeit
ure, would seem to put vendee who
paid substantial part of the price in
advance and then defaulted in a worse
nothing in advance and ultimately re-
fused to go on with the contract, as in
the former case the vendor might get
very much more than compensation
for the loss, while in the latter she
gets only compensation for his actual
loss, frequently measured by the differ
ence between the contract price and
the value of the property at the time
of the breach, which may be merely a
nominal amount"
The decision quotes authorities as
to the ability of party breaking a
contract to recover for work done or
benefits conferred less damages caused
by the breach. The court finds that
the defendant "parted with nothing,
not even the possession and use of the
property agreed to be conveyed, and 1t
nowhere appears that he lost. 81 by
reason of his promise or by reason of
Crosby's default" The opinion was
written by Chief Justice Torrance.
In commenting on the case the able
New Haven Leader says: The su.
preme court decided that former Comp
troller Nicholas Staub of New MILFORD
must pay over TO the heirs of Mr. eros
by nearly $40, 900, which is the amount
OF original payments made by Mr. eros
by deceased, plus interest since thu
date of such payments.
1t is noticeable that Chief Justic,
Torrance, who wrote the opinion say
that as no claim for damages was sci
up, the court finds no reason for allow
i ing Mr. Staub to retain possession O.
any of the money paid to him by M
Crosby.
This seems to be a strong intima
tion that the attorneys for Mr. Staut
omitted very important effort in be
half of their client. 1t is perfectly evi
dent that they either neglected to Sc
up claim for damages or for some rea
son deemed it inexpedient to do so.
In view of the fact that Mr. Staul
was defendant in this case it seems a
If one of the answers to the plaintiff
complaint should have been that tn
defendant had suffered damages an
was entitled to recover therefore.
Briefly, this decision establishes as
rule OF law in Connecticut that me-
may sell options on property only a
their peril. The man who sells tn
: option is liable to the buyer, but
the buyer for any reason decides no
to avail himself of the option he ma
demand and recover the paymen
made to the seller.
! The sellers only remedy will be t