The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1911-11-30
MACON VS.. FLANDERS
4 Case of Much Interest to Somerset
County People.

The case of w. E. Magoon against
B. L. Flanders of Ckowhegan has
aroused considerable interest in this
section of Somerset County and the
results have been as follows;
This is an action on the case to re-
cover damages for an alleged failure
on the part of the defendant to CON
vey to the plaintiff certain real estate
according to the terms of the following
contracts signed by the parties, viz:
In consideration of $3.50 paid by w.
E. Magoon on the following terms, So
per month for one year and $500 at the
end of the year and the balance year
ly, B. L. Flanders agrees to give said
Magoon a good and sufficient title to
the land and buildings thereon situated
north of the Catholic cemetery on
North street in Skowhegan.
"Skowhegan, May 4, 1909"
The plaintiff was alcQ allowed to add
a second count for money had and
received, under which he claimed to
recover s96 and interest, being the
amount of twelve payments under the
contract at So per month.
The defendant commended that the
plaintiff waived whatever right he had
under the contract to purchase the
property and by his conduct was es-
topped to claim any damages from the
defendant.
At the close of the testimony the
presiding judge ordered verdict for
the plaintiff FOR 500, and interest, with
the stipulation that if the exceptions
taken by the defendant were sustained
by the law court, judgment should be
entered for the defendant.
1t is the opinion of the court that
the exceptions must be sustained.
There was sufficient evidence if be-
lieved to support finding by the jury
that the plaintiffs failure to receive a
deed of the premises was due to his
own breach of the contract and not to
any fault on the part of the defendant.
1t is conceded that the plaintiff failed
to pay the $500 at the end of the first
year, and no explanation or excuse
was offered for the failure, except that
he did not have the money to pay it;
but it does not appear that he asked
for any further time or indulgence.
On the contrary the evidence would
authorize the jury to find that in April
1910, he accepted the proposition made
by the defendant for him to occupy
the place another year at the same
rental" of IS per north, if the defen-
dant did not sell the property. The
plaintiff admitted that he had not earn
ed enough during the winter to pay
his expenses and when at the be-
ginning of the second year, the defend
ant found a purchaser for the prop
erty, the plaintiff does not appear to
have made any objection to the sale |
and for three weeks made no claim
for damages, except the value of hen
yard built by him, for Which he ac
cepted satisfaction from the defendant,
without any suggestion that he would
have liked more time to pay the $30G
and without any complaint that he had
not been fairly treated by the defend
ant
The written contract is silent in re-
gard to the plaintiffs occupation of the
premises during the first year. But
the plaintiff was allowed to take pos
session upon the payment in advance
g lot III for thp |
place. There was no suggestion that
the plaintiff was to have the use of
the premises for year, rent free, i
he failed to pay the $500 at the end OF
the year without fault of the defend
ant. On the contrary IL appears from
the defendants testimony that near
the close of the year in April 1910,
The plaintiff asked for reduction of
rent" and under the practical inter
probation given to the contract by the
parties, the Jury would have been JUS
titled In reaching the conclusion that
the monthly payments made by the
plaintiff the first year were to be re-
tai during that time, if the plaintiff
gave up possession by reason Of his
failure to pay the $500, without fault
OF the defendant.
The practical result was that the
plaintiff occupied the house for year
at reasonable rental, and by leaving
at the beginning of the second year, he
sustained no damage for which the de-
PENDANT was legally or equitably re-
sponsible.
According to the stipulation of the
parties, the certificate must be.
Exceptions sustained. Judgment for
the defendant.