Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/869

MARTINDAIiE V. WAA8. 855 �and delivery'of the deed, which was to be done at the same time, at the complainant'a residence in Minneapolis. The conYeyance was to be a full covenant warranty deed, and the defendants stipulated and agreed that the title should be free and clear from all encum- brances. At the time the contract -was executed the land had been Bold on foreeiosure for defanlt of an instalment of interest on a mortgage, and the time for redemption expired February 20, 1880, but the defendants paid the instalment before the time expired. �The land was surveyed and platted, and found to contain 17.82 acres. The daughters of the defendants were absent from home until after the sixth of February^ and had previously refused, as tes- tified to by their father, to sign any papers, and it -was mutually agreed to await their arrivai. There is a conflict of testimony whether it was the fifth or seventh of February wben it was so agreed, but the date is immaterial in the view taken by the court, There were one or more interviews between John Waas and the complainant, either on the streets of Minneapolis, at the complainant's residence, or in John Waas' office, about the delivery of a deed from the daugh- ters, who still refused to execute it. On the thirteenth of February John Waas visited the complainant's house. There is a conflict in the testimony as to what oecurred at that interview. John Waas testifies that he offered to give a warranty deed of the land, and that was all he could give and the only way to settle itl He admits that he had no deed with him, and none had been executed, but he says one waa ready to be drawn, and his wife was ready to sign it. The complainant's testimony is that Waas told him that he would bring such a deed, and also a quitclaim deed to the oity for streets, etc., and that he, the complainant, told Waas that he must fulfil his con- tract without further delay. The difference in the testimony is not important. ,■ �There was another interview on the nineteenth or twentieth of February in Waas' office. At that time Mrs. Meader was present, who heJd a mortgage on the land given by Waas and wife. This appointment must have been made with a view to close up the busi- ness, and the testimony of the complainant to that effect is not denicd by Waas, and is corroborated by Mrs. Meader. At that time Waas offered to give a warranty deed, but the complainant deolined to accept such a deed in satisfaction, and was anxious about the right of way for streets. After soipe conversation and suggestions, it was thoughtthe daughters would make a deed ; to their father. The amount due; Mrs. Meader on he;r,juiortgage was computed, and she ��� �