The Washington times., 1934-05-03

I st. N. w., washington, D. c.,
for the use Of the Concord Club
of Washington, D. c., as club
house at and for the price of $22,-
900, payable in cash at the time
of settlement. And be it further
resolved, that the president be au-
thorized to have cashiers checks
drawn on the Union Trust Com
pany and the District National
Bank in amounts sufficient to pay
the purchase price of said prop
erty as heretofore stated, and the
further amounts due as shown by
the settlement sheet of the Dis
trict Title Insurance Company,
dated February 3, 1882, and pay
and deliver said checks in full
settlement of said purchase"
The checks were issued and held
by an officer of the defendant
club for delivery, when upon ex-
animation Of the title it appeared
that a prior sales contract had
been recorded against the prop
erty. Upon the advice of the at
torney for defendant company,
to the effect that the title was
defective, the delivery of the
checks was withheld. Later, Cal
vert secured, on behalf of the
plaintiff, a release of this con-
tract, which cleared the record.
This release was placed on rec.
ord February IT, 1882. It was
then arranged between the agents
Of the parties to pay all the pur.
chase price on February 10 and
close up the transaction. Coun-
sci for the defendant club ap-
peared at the title company on
that date, made a further exami-
nation of the papers, and said
that the transaction would be
closed as soon as he could verify
certain information regarding
taxes and insurance. The club
later refused to settle, and. when
demand was made upon it to per-
form, it repudiated the entire
transaction.
1t appears that early in the
negotiations key was furnished
to the ways and means commit
tee of the club for the purpose of
inspecting the premises, and this
key was held by the committee
pending these transactions. Dur.
ing this period, the officers of the
club spent about $12 in repair
ing the roof, to prevent damage
to the property, and $25 for
an architect to plan alterations.
Upon these facts, it is urged that
there was a contract between the
plaintiff and the defendant club
which is enforceable, and without
the limitations of the statute Of
frauds.
Plaintiff, in his bill Of COM
plant, alleges that contract was
entered into on December IS.
This averment is based upon
what is termed an offer being in
the form of telegram to the
plaintiff in a reply telegram. This
simply amounted to an exchange
of kilograms between the appel
liant and his agent, and. could not
constitute a binding contract, as
against defendant club. Nor can
this be held to have been re.
garded by Calvert as amounting
to a contract between the plain.
tiff and defendant. Calvert, in
a letter to Kraft, dated December
81, 1881, states: 1T is understood
that as you have not submitted
any contract in writing, or put
up any money, that until the same
is done, that I or Mr.. Sturrow re-
tain the right to sell the property
to any other purchaser without
being liable for any commission
or other damages.
The issue to be determined in
this case is not whether defend
ant intended to purchase the
property, or whether the plaintiff
and his agents thought that de-
fendant would purchase this prop
erty. The question is whether
defendant agreed to purchase the
property, thereby creating a bind
ing obligation upon its part to
purchase the same. The question
of what the club might have done
had it not found another contract