Case Name: Douglas, Respondent, vs. Vorpahl, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1918-04-03
Citations: 167 Wis. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: Douglas, Respondent, vs. Vorpahl, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 167
Pages: 244–246

Head Matter:
Douglas, Respondent, vs. Vorpahl, Appellant.
March 7
April 3, 1918.
Vendor and purchaser: Statute of frauds: Memorandum of contract: Sufficiency: Time of payment: Description of land.
1. A written memorandum acknowledging receipt from C. V. of $15, “as part payment of $2,400, when warranty deed and abstract is given to” real property described, and signed by the owner’s authorized agent, is a sufficient contract for the sale of land, under sec. 2804, Stats. No time of payment being specified, the payment is to be cash on delivery of the deed and abstract showing good title, a reasonable time being allowed for examination of the abstract.
2. The description in a contract for the sale of land is sufficient if, with the aid of the surrounding circumstances, it can be determined with reasonable certainty what land was intended; and that is a matter to be determined by the evidence on the trial, not upon a demurrer to the complaint setting, out the contract.
Appeal from an order of tbe circuit court for Brown county: HeNby Gbaass, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Tbe appeal is from an order overruling a general demurrer to tbe complaint. Tbe action is brought by tbe vendor to obtain specific performance of a contract for tbe sale of land, and tbe complaint sets forth tbe making by tbe parties of an agreement evidenced by tbe following written memorandum or contract:
“Green Bay, Wisconsin, July 21, 1916, received of Charles Vorpahl $15, as part payment of (2,400) twenty-four hundred dollars, when warranty deed and abstract is given to lots number one and two, in Cady and Warren subdivision to tbe city of Green Bay, Wisconsin.
“O. J. Douglas,
“Per J. L. Wilcox, Agent.”
Tbe question presented on appeal is whether this memorandum or contract is sufficient to satisfy sec. 2304, Stats., which requires every such contract “or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing tbe consideration,” to be in writing and subscribed by tbe vendor or bis authorized agent.
Eor tbe appellant tbe cause was submitted on tbe briefs of Bruemmer & Bruemmer of Kewaunee.
Eor tbe respondent there was a brief by Kaftan (& Reynolds of Green Bay, and tbe cause was argued orally by Robert A. Kaftan.

Opinion:
WiNSLOW, C. J.
Under the decisions of this court tbe memorandum was clearly sufficient to satisfy tbe terms of sec. 2304, Stats. It was in writing, was subscribed by the vendor's authorized agent, expressed tbe consideration, described tbe property, and was sufficiently definite in its terms so that it can be readily gathered therefrom that it was tbe intention of tbe plaintiff to convey and of tbe defendant to purchase. No time of payment was specified, but this simply means that tbe payment is to be cash on tbe delivery of tbe deed and abstract showing good title, a reasonable time be ing allowed for examination of the abstract. Schweitzer v. Connor, 51 Wis. 117, 14 N. W. 922; Van Doren v. Roepke, 107 Wis. 535, 83 N. W. 754; Cliver v. Heil, 95 Wis. 364, 70 N. W. 346; Williamson v. Neeves, 94 Wis. 656, 69 N. W. 806; Sizer v. Clark, 116 Wis. 534, 93 N. W. 539.
It is admitted by the complaint that the description is defective because it does not name the block and because there are two Warren subdivisions in the city. However, the principle is familiar that if the contract refers to the land in such terms that by the aid of the surrounding circumstances át the time the court can with reasonable certainty determine what land is intended, it will be sufficient. Wis. Cent. R. Co. v. Schug, 155 Wis. 563, 145 N. W. 177. This is a matter to be determined by the evidence on the trial, not by demurrer.
By the Gourt. — Order affirmed.