The Newtown bee., 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 $l50, 0,OOO 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 s30,O before the con- tract was executed and he agreed to 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 certain n0te of his made to the defendent and then in the hands of a third party, and the defendant agreed to extend the time for the performance of the con- tracts for 30 days from February B, 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
 
 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 (staubl became entitled at his option 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 worse position than the vendee who paid nothing in advance and ultimately re- the former case the vendor might get very much more than compensation for the loss, while in the latter 'he 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. Tlle court finds that the defendant "parted with nothing, not even the possession and use of the property agreed to be conveyed, and it nowhere appears that he lost Sl 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 l 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 MT CrOs. by nearly S70, 900, which is the amount of original payments made by MT Cros by deceased, plus interest since the date of such payments.
 It is noticeable that Chief Justice Torrance, who wrote the opinion say! that as no claim for damages was sci up, the court finds no reason for allow. ing MT Staub to retain possession o1 any of the money paid to him by MI Crosby.
 This seems to be a strong intima tion that the attorneys for MT Staut omitted very important effort in be half of their client. It is perfectly evi dent that they either neglected to sci up claim for damages or for some req son deemed it inexpedient to do so.
 In view of the fact that MT Staul was defendant in this case it seems a if one of the answers to the plaintiff complaint should have been that thu defendant had suffered damages ant was entitled to recover therefore.
 Briefly, this decision establishes as { rule of law in Connecticut that mel may sell options on property only a
 their peril. The man who sells th 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.
 l.