Canda v. . Totten
157 N.Y. 281, 11 E.H. Smith 281, 51 N.E. 989 (1898)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity will compel the specific performance of an oral agreement for the conveyance of land, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, where the plaintiff has fully or partly performed their obligations under the agreement and the defendant has accepted such performance.
Facts:
- John M. Canda's real estate, in which his wife, the plaintiff, held an inchoate right of dower, was scheduled to be sold at a public auction by his assignee.
- The plaintiff, Mrs. Canda, decided to purchase some of the properties if the price was low and asked a trusted friend, Totten (defendant), to bid on her behalf.
- Totten orally agreed to bid on and purchase the properties for Mrs. Canda, who would in turn provide the funds.
- At the auction, Totten successfully bid on the properties for $620 above existing encumbrances, paying the initial required percentage.
- After the sale, Totten took the deeds to the properties in his own name.
- Mrs. Canda's husband then delivered the full purchase price of $620, plus an additional $10 for expenses, to Totten, who accepted the money and deposited it into his bank account.
- After the auction and on the faith of the agreement, Mrs. Canda paid interest on mortgages, taxes, insurance, and made repairs to the buildings, while also collecting rents for a period.
- Totten subsequently refused to execute a deed to convey the properties to Mrs. Canda.
Procedural Posture:
- Canda (plaintiff) sued Totten (defendant) in the New York trial court (Special Term) seeking specific performance of the oral agreement to convey land.
- The Special Term entered a judgment in favor of Canda, ordering Totten to convey the property.
- Totten (appellant) appealed to the intermediate appellate court (General Term).
- The General Term reversed the judgment of the Special Term on a question of law, finding for Totten.
- Canda (appellant) then appealed the General Term's reversal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Statute of Frauds bar the enforcement of an oral agreement to convey real property when the plaintiff has fully paid the purchase price to the defendant, who accepted it, and has also paid for taxes, insurance, and repairs on the property in reliance on the agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, Ch. J.
No. The Statute of Frauds does not bar enforcement of the oral agreement because the plaintiff's part performance takes the contract out of the statute. The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud, not to enable a party to perpetrate a fraud. Here, the plaintiff fully performed her side of the oral agreement by paying the entire purchase price, which the defendant accepted and deposited. Furthermore, the plaintiff acted in reliance on the agreement by paying taxes, insurance, mortgage interest, and making repairs to the property. To allow the defendant to invoke the Statute of Frauds as a defense after accepting full performance would be to use the statute as an instrument of fraud, which equity will not permit. This case is distinguished from others where no part performance had occurred and the plaintiff had no pre-existing interest in the property.
Analysis:
This case is a classic application of the equitable doctrine of part performance as an exception to the Statute of Frauds. It solidifies the principle that equity will intervene to enforce an oral agreement for the sale of land when denying enforcement would effectively sanction a fraud. The decision clarifies that a combination of full payment of the purchase price, acceptance by the seller, and subsequent acts of ownership by the purchaser (like paying taxes and making repairs) constitutes sufficient performance to take the agreement out of the statute. This precedent is crucial for understanding the limits of the Statute of Frauds and the power of equity courts to grant specific performance based on the parties' conduct.
