Chrisman v. Partee and wife. "The plaintiffs have been heavily damaged by having the hotel property withheld from them; and also relying upon the defendant's promise to take possession of the lands, they did not make the usual necessary arrangements to put the same in cultivation." Mrs. Partee, in her deposition, fully corroborated her husband in his statements of her authority to him to sell the land, and to complete the negotiations and sale to Chrisman. James B. Core, witness for the plaintiff, deposed that "I heard both parties talk about the exchange at Little Rock. I went with Partee to Little Rock to assist in making the trade. Before the signing of the agreement it was understood that Partee should go to Mississippi at once and get his wife to sign the deed to that part of the Mosby place that had been allotted to her. That part of the Mosby place had been platted by John N. Martin, county surveyor, and I think Mr. Partee had the plat in his possession. Chrisman and Partee had gone over the place a few days before the agreement was made. Chrisman came to my house, I think, twenty-third December, about two miles from the place, and talked with me about the trade he had made with Partee, and expressed himself perfectly satisfied. The place was divided by order of court six or seven years ago, between Mrs. Steven, Mrs. Core, Mrs. Partee and Mrs. Mosby, the widow, and each one's portion assigned to them separately. "There was a fractional forty-acre block at Wildcat to be included in the trade by Partee, which belonged equally to Mrs. Partee and my wife. I had an understanding with Chrisman and Partee that I should reserve five acres of this forty-acre tract; all the rest to belong to Chrisman, with choice of the two store-houses. It was perfectly under Chrisman v. Partee and wife. stood between Chrisman and myself about the five-acre reservation." William Gilbert, witness for the plaintiffs, deposed that "About the twenty-third of December, 1876, at the Mosby place, Chrisman told me that he had traded for the Partee portion of the Mosby place, and the forty-acre tract of land at Wildcat, and asked me about the stock on the Partee portion of the Mosby place, particularly about the mules. He went to McElroy's house, on the Mosby place, to look at the tools, and asked him to take care of them for him, which McElroy agreed to do." Samuel Humphreys, for the plaintiffs, deposed that on the twenty-third December, 1877, he met Chrisman at Deutsh's store, near the Partee portion of the Mosby place. Witness lived on the place. Chrisman told him that he had traded for Partee's place and the stock that was on it, and he got from witness one of the mules and rode it off home, leaving his pony with witness to take care of. It was about a month before the mule got back to the place. Witness lived on the Core part of the Mosby place. He had no special authority to get the mule, which he was using and which Dr. Chrisman got, but had been living on the place nearly all his life, and had permission to take up any of the stock on the place when they were not in use. He let Dr. Chrisman have the mule because he supposed it belonged to him, from what he and Mr. Core had both told him. McElroy, for plaintiffs, deposed that he had been living on the Mosby place for ten years. On the twenty-third day of December, 1876, Chrisman came to him and told him he came by reference of Mr. Partee for information about the stock and tools. Witness gave Chrisman all the information he wanted; showed him all the tools belonging to Chrisman v. Partee and wife. Wit Partee. He said he had traded for the Partee place, together with the stock and tools, and after examining the tools asked witness to take care of them for him. ness agreed to do so, and did do so until some time in February, 1877, when they and the stock and corn were turned over to Dr. Wilburn through Mr. Core, by orders, as he said, from Mr. Partee. Wilburn rented the places. (the Wildcat and Partee part of the Mosby places) from Partee for 1877. Otho O. Badgett, witness for the plaintiffs, was present when the plaintiff, Reuben D. Partee, tendered the deed to Chrisman and demanded in return a deed to the Central House property. Chrisman declined to give the deed, assigning as a reason that his wife would not join him in its execution by relinquishment of her dower. Partee then offered to take his deed without his wife's relinquishment. Chrisman replied that, owing to existing circumstances in his family he would decline to make any deed at all. Partee said that he would institute suit at once. Chrisman replied that he expected it. Matlock, a witness for the defendant, deposed that about the third of January, 1877, he applied to Partee to rent the place in controversy. Partee at first offered to rent, saying that something would have to be done with it during the litigation to prevent waste and destruction; but he put witness off until the eighth, telling him to call then on his attorney, Mr. Dodge. He did so; Dodge put him off till the tenth. He then told witness to get Partee's mule from Chrisman and go down and see the place, and if he liked it he would draw up the contract. Witness did so, but did not like the place and didn't rent it. He left the mule with Mr. Badgett, a relative of Partee's, at Little Rock, and Partee afterwards sold the mule to him. When wit Chrisman v. Partee and wife. ness went to Chrisman for the mule he said it was all right to take him. Before the hearing the defendant moved to suppress all the depositions for the plaintiffs, in so far as they attempt to vary or add to the written contract between the parties, and to suppress Partee's deposition, because he could not testify in behalf of his wife. The cause was submitted to the court on the sixteenth of November, 1877. The court found that the contract ought to be specifically performed, but that there was a material mistake in the description of the lands tendered to the defendant-only a small portion of those included in the contract being included in the deed. It therefore ordered that the submission be withdrawn; that the parties have leave to amend their pleadings, to correct mistakes, or state more clearly matters of charge or defense; and that the plaintiffs bring into court, by the tenth day of December, 1877, a deed in accordance with the contract upon which the action was brought. This bill is brought by Partee and wife to enforce the specific performance of a contract made by Chrisman with the husband, R. D. Partee, to convey to him the property in Little Rock known as the Central Hotel. It states that on the twenty-second day of December, 1876, defendant was the owner of said hotel property, together with all furniture, fixtures and appurtenances belonging thereto; and that complainant, Georgie M. Partee, was the Chrisman v. Partee and wife. owner of a certain farm in Jefferson county, describing it particularly. That upon that day, said R. D. Partee, acting for himself and wife, and said defendant made a contract for the exchange of said property. This contract was in writing, as follows: LITTLE ROCK, ARK., December 22, 1876. This is to certify that we, the undersigned, have made the following exchange of property, and that we have obligated ourselves, according to law, to adhere to the following described trade or exchange: That is to say, that I, F. M. Chrisman, have this day agreed to exchange lots 11 and 12, block 84, city of Little Rock, Arkansas, including hotel and fixtures, for R. D. Partee's entire interest-not including widow's dowerin the place known as the Mosby place, in Jefferson county, Ark. and also, his interest in a forty-acre block at Wildcat Landing. And that I, R. D. Partee, agree to abide by the above described trade, it being understood that both parties are to give clear titles to their respective property above described. (Signed) Duplicate. F. M. CHRISMAN, Witnessed by J. L. BAY, H. L. FLETCHER. A copy is exhibited of a list of the furniture and personal property belonging to said hotel, as furnished by the defendant at the time. That complainant, R. D. Partee, proceeded at once to the State of Mississippi, where his wife then was, and they together executed to defendant, Chrisman, a valid and suficient deed, according to the terms of the contract. |