Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 July 1909 — SCHATZLEY WINS AGAIN. [ARTICLE]

SCHATZLEY WINS AGAIN.

The lower court’s decision in the case of McCauley vs. Schatzley, growing out of the contract between plaintiff, a resident of Chicago, and Charles Schatzley, a well known farmer and large land-owner of Wheatfield township, this county, for the exchange of property in Chicago, and Charles Schatzley’s lands in this county, was affirmed by the appellate court Thursday. Defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint was sustained by Judge Hanley, which threw the case out of court. Plaintiff appealed, and loses out again. The court held:

Two or more written instruments executed at the same time relating to the same transaction or subject matter must be construed together in determing what was the contract that the parties entered into. (2) here an indefinite written contract for the exchange of lands executed by both parties and at the same time each party signed and acknowledged a deed of conveyance and one party signed a note and mortgage securing part of the agreed purchase price and such deeds, mortgage, note and Contract were all deposited in escrow “until such time that the parties shall... agree for the bank to turn over” the same, as provided in the written contract, such ex parte deeds, mortgage and notes can not aid the mutual contract in a suit thereon for specific performance. (3) The allegation that said instruments as a whole constitute the written contract entered into states a mere conclusion. (4) A contract for the exchange of lands, providing that either party shall "have time to cure defects” in his title without limiting such time, and that the contract and papers shall be kept in escrow until the parties agree for the bank to turn over” the same, and that one party shall execute “a mortgage securing $3,000 without stating for how long or what interest shall be paid, or the land on which the mortgage is to be given, can not be specifically enforced by suit.