Mauzy v. Millar

HOLLZER, J.,

pro tem.

This is an action upon a note in the sum of $1600, executed by defendant to the order of one E. IT. Mauzy, one of the plaintiffs, and who assigned same to the parties bringing this suit.

The circumstances under which the note was given were, briefly, as follows:

In September, 1925, E. H. Mauzy, one of the plaintiffs, and one Darnell, as agent for the remaining plaintiffs, entered into an escrow agreement with one R. F. Crittenden, Avhereby the Title Insurance & Trust Company was authorized to act as escrow-holder in connection with the sale of certain real estate by plaintiffs to said Crittenden, at the price of $325,000.

Shortly thereafter, a deed, duly executed and acknowledged by ail of the plaintiffs, conveying said property to said Crittenden, was deposited in said escrow by said Darnell.

Apparently being unable to complete the purchase of the property within the time provided by the escrow, said Crittenden on January 21, 1926, paid to the plaintiffs the sum of $4,000 on account of said purchase, and at the same time said escrow agreement was modified so as to grant to Crittenden an extension of time to March 20, 1926, within which the balance of the purchase price might be paid, and also so as to grant to him the right to three additional extensions thereafter of thirty days each, upon the payment each month in advance of $1600, it being agreed, however, that no part of such monthly payments should apply on the purchase price. Said escrow agreement, as thus modified, was originally signed by the plaintiff E. H. Mauzy, and the said Darnell, as agent for the remaining plaintiffs, but the latter shortly thereafter ratified such modification in writing. On or about February 17, 1926, Crittenden assigned to the defendant an undivided three-fourths interest in said property.

[425]

Being unable to pay the balance of the purchase price by March 20th, Crittenden induced the defendant to execute and deliver the note in question, in consideration of which he secured an additional extension of thirty days.

The purchase not being completed by April 20, 1926, a further extension was granted to May 5, 1926. No further payment having been made, said E. H. Mauzy and Darnell, the latter acting as agent for the remaining plaintiffs, on July 7, 1926, gave notice to the escrow agent that the agreement would be canceled on July 20, 1926, on which last-mentioned date the plaintiffs terminated the deal.