(1) Specific Performance. Indefinite Terms of the Agreement. Parol Evidence. An agreement for the purchase of land, and payment therefor in part by mortgages, failed to state the length of time the latter were to run and whether they should bear interest and the rate thereof: — Held, that the agreement was insufficient ground for a bill for specific performance. Quoere, whether allegations in the bill showing the terms of the mortgages, to be proved by parol, could be sustained. The identity of the land referred to in such agreement may be shown by parol. A refusal of the respondent to carry out the contract is a sufficient reason for not tendering a deed of the land within the time limited therefor in the agreement.
PER CURIAM.
Our opinion is that the demurrer must be sustained because the bill does not show the terms upon which the mortgages were to be given, either as to length of time they were to run or as to whether they were to carry interest, and, if so, at what rate. Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516; Schmelling v. Kriesel, 45 Wis. 325.
We think that the identity of the land may be shown by parol. Ives v. Armstrong, 5 R.I. 567; Waring v. Ayres, 40 N.Y. 357; Hurley v. Brown, 98 Mass. 545.
The bill sets out a refusal of the respondent to carry out the contract as an excuse for not tendering the deed within the thirty days stipulated in the memorandum. We think that such refusal was a sufficient excuse. Bicknell v. Waterman, 5 R.I. 43.
Whether allegations, to be proved by parol, showing the terms of the mortgage, could be sustained, we do not decide.