Buttner v. Smith

California Supreme Court Apr 30, 1894 No. No. 15,427Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the $3,100 paid to the defendant because the option contract was never accepted by the plaintiff, and the defendant was liable for interest on that sum from the date of the plaintiff's demand for repayment.

Issues

Whether the option contract became a mutual, binding obligation requiring the plaintiff to offer performance before suing for breach.
Whether the defendant was liable for interest on the $3,100 from the date of the plaintiff's demand for its return.

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As the offer was never accepted by Buttner so as to become a binding obligation upon him, the appellant could not have been prejudiced by excluding his testimony in reference to any understanding respecting its terms.”

“As the defendant was not entitled to retain the money after the plaintiff’s demand therefor, his refusal to comply with such demand made him liable for interest thereon from that date”

Synopsis

Options—Acceptance.—Defendant Gave Plaintiff a Written Option to purchase stock for $3,100 cash and the balance on time. On the last day of the option plaintiff said he would take the stock “according to the terms of the writing,” but defendant, desiring time to get a portion thereof from one to whom it was pledged, indorsed aq extension of eleven days on the agreement. After such extension, plaintiff let defendant have $3,100 to get the pledged stock, but he failed to do so, and, after the expiration of the option, demanded the return of the $3,100. Held, that there was no binding acceptance of the option.

Option.—Plaintiff is Entitled to Interest on the Sum sought to be recovered from the date of his demand for its return.

HARRISON, J. The appellant gave to the respondent the

following agreement:

“San Jose, Cal., May 24, 1889.

“I hereby grant to J. C. Buttner or assigns five days’ refusal to purchase 490 shares of Union Mill and Lumber Co. stock for the sum of $15,100 on the following terms, to wit, $3,100 down on or before the 29th day of May, 1889, at 3 P. M.; $1,000 payable every six months thereafter, with interest on the whole balance, payable every six months, and the said 490 shares as security, and 20 shares additional; making 510 shares in all.....

“CHAS. C. SMITPI.”

On the 29th of May the appellant desired further time to arrange about some of the stock that was held by one McCoy in pledge for an indebtedness of his, and made the following indorsement upon the foregoing instrument:

“San Jose, May 29, 1889.

“The within agreement is hereby continued until the 9th day of June, 1889, at 3 o’clock P. M.

“C. C. SMITH.”

This indorsement was made at the Garden City Bank, in San Jose, which at the same time held one hundred and seventy shares of the stock in pledge for an indebtedness of the appellant, and where the respondent also had some money on deposit. After the above transaction, Buttner told Smith that [629]he had some money to his credit at that bank, and, upon Smith’s statement, in reply to Buttner’s suggestion, that if he would let him have the money it would help him to get that stock, Buttner let him have $3,100. About ten days after this time, Smith saw Buttner, and told him he could not get the stock from McCoy; and about two weeks later Smith again went to Buttner, and proposed a change in the contract, by which Buttner could get the stock in some other way. This, however, was declined by Buttner. Smith failed to get the stock from McCoy, and, in August, Buttner demanded that he pay back the $3,100, and, upon his refusal, brought this suit. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. From the judgment entered thereon, and from an order denying a new trial, the defendant has appealed.

As the accounts of the interviews and of the conversations. between them given to the jury by the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, are conflicting, we must assume that in everything in which such conflict existed the jury gave credence to those statements which are necessary to support their verdict, and disregarded those in contradiction thereof. The appellant has not brought up with the record the instructions given by the court upon the issues before the jury, and we must also assume that the issues to be determined by them were fully and correctly presented and pointed out, and that they were also correctly instructed upon all matters of law arising in the case pertaining to these issues: Garrison v. McGlockley, 38 Cal. 78.

Buttner v. Smith

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief