Court Opinion

ID: 9865830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 21:38:43.99871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:22.135097
License: Public Domain

Denman, J.,
concurring with the reasons expressed, said:
“Notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ refusal to pay, the defendant was bound to go. on and deliver the rest of the iron. ’ ’
In McAllister-Coman Co. v. Matthews, 167 Ala. 361 (140 Am. St. 43, 52 So. 416), it is said:
“Merely because a given act or course of conduct of one party to a contract is inconsistent with the contract is not sufficient; it must be inconsistent with the intention to be longer bound by it.”
See, also, Brady v. Oliver, 125 Tenn. 595 (147 S. W. 1135, 1139, 41 L. R. A. [N. S.] 60, Ann. Cas. 1913C 376) ; Fay v. Oliver, 20 Vt. 118 (49 Am. Dec. 764, 767).
As the defendants were insisting upon the contract, requiring performance on the part of the plaintiff, and offering performance themselves, an error on their part as to its construction or its effect or meaning would not be a breach that would entitle the plaintiff to rescind. Newell v. E. B. & A. L. Stone Co., 181 Cal. 385 (184 Pac. 659) ; St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lbr. Co., 186 N. Y. 89 (78 N. E. 701); Harper v. Battle, 180 N. C. 375 (104 S. E. 658).
Whether time is or is not of the essence, a contract for sale of real property cannot now be forfeited without giving the statutory notice of intention. It is provided by Section 4301, Code of 1897 (Section 12394, Code of 1924), that the requirements ox the preceding sections ... ,. - . . - , prescribing notice and giving 30 days to per-f0rm “shall be operative in all cases where the intention of the parties, as gathered from the contract and sur*1136rounding circumstances, is to sell or to agree to sell an interest in réal estate, any contract or agreement of the parties to the contrary notwithstanding.” It is not necessary to the operation or requirements of these sections that time be made of the essence. Whether time is or is not of the essence, the 30 days’ notice and opportunity to perform must be given. Though time had been waived, therefore, it was incumbent upon the defendants to give notice of forfeiture before they could declare the contract at an end. In giving notice and its accompanying opportunity to perform, the defendants were not proceeding in hostility to the contract. They were not intimating an intention to abandon it or to refuse to be bound by it. They were standing on the contract and on the law governing it. The notice and the claim to possession and the retaking of possession were based upon the contract and statute, and on defendants’ fulfillment of them. There was no abandonment or breach by defendants entitling the plaintiff to rescind. McLain v. Smith, 201 Iowa 89; Janes v. Towne, 201 Iowa 690; Newell v. E. B. & A. L. Stone Co., 181 Cal. 385 (184 Pac. 659); Legvold v. Olson, 194 Iowa 1000, 1005; McAllister-Coman Co. v. Matthews, 167 Ala. 361 (52 So. 416); 13 Corpus Juris 657; Brady v. Oliver, 125 Tenn. 595 (147 S. W. 1135, 1139, 41 L. R. A. [N. S.] 60, Ann. Cas. 1913C 376); Hoggson Bros. v. First Nat. Bank, 146 C. C. A. 65 (231 Fed. 869, 872); 5 Page on The Law of Contracts (2d Ed.), Section 2909; Newton v. VanDusen, 47 Minn. 437 (50 N. W. 820); Hall v. Northern & Southern Co., 55 Fla. 235 (46 So. 178); Houghton v. Callahan, 3 Wash. 158 (28 Pac. 377) ; Reynolds v. Nelson, 6 Madd. Ch. 18 (22 Rev. Rep. 225, 56 Eng. Rep. 995) ; Clark v. American Dev. & Min. Co., 28 Mont. 468 (72 Pac. 978).
We do not hold that 30 days’ notice and time to perform would in all cases be reasonable where, because of absence or waiver of time-ofiessence clause, reasonable opportunity to perform must be afforded. We hold merely that, on the facts of this case, there was no mutual rescission, and that the defendants did not rescind, and were not guilty of such a breach or abandonment of the contract as to entitle the plaintiff to rescind. As this probably disposes of the case, as well as of the appeal, it is not necessary to consider other questions arising on the record.
*1137The judgment is—Reversed.
Evans, Favíele, Vermilion, and Albert, JJ., concur.
De Graff, 0. J., and Stevens, J., dissent.