Allen v. Reichert, 5388
| Decision Date | 03 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 5388,5388 |
| Citation | 237 P.2d 818,73 Ariz. 91 |
| Parties | ALLEN et ux. v. REICHERT. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Ashby I. Lohse, of Tucson, for appellants.
John C. Gung'l, of Tucson, for appellee.
DE CONCINI, Justice.
Mrs. Reichert, the plaintiff recovered a judgment in the trial court against Mr. and Mrs. Allen in the sum of $531.71 for damages resulting from two leaking roofs on some improved property, consisting of three cottages she purchased from the Allens, the appellants herein. The chronology of events leading up to the conveyance of the premises were as follows:
Plaintiff, through a saleswoman of a broker, after having inspected the property made a written offer (Plaintiff's Exhibit A) to defendants on April 29, 1948, and defendants accepted and signed the offer after several changes suggested by their attorney had been made, on April 30, 1948. On or about the 15th of May, the exact date being in dispute, the parties met for the first time and immediately before that meeting or soon thereafter signed Defendants' Exhibit 1, the final Contract for Sale of Real Estate dated May 13, 1948. The acknowledgements showed that the plaintiff signed on May 19th although she admitted she may have signed before the 15th; and that the defendants signed on May 17, 1948. Neither of these agreements made any mention of warranties regarding the roofs of the buildings.
Plaintiff's complaint consisted of two causes of action. The first cause was for fraud and misrepresentation. It was dismissed on motion of the defendants at the close of plaintiff's case and no cross-appeal was taken by the plaintiff herein.
The second cause of action was grounded on express warranties. At the close of plaintiff's case defendants moved to 'strike all testimony of the witnesses with reference to any conversation in apartment 'A' on or about the 15th day of May, 1948, with reference to the roof'. The court then asked counsel for plaintiff if he wished to amend and he replied, 'Yes, that is right.'
The court then said:
This was in reference to the only conversation the parties had before the plaintiff went into possession of the premises. Thereupon plaintiff asked and it was granted that the second cause of action be amended as follows: '* * * sold and delivered said premises and the possession thereof to her, and the defendant then and there, on April 29, 1948 and on May 15, 1948 impliedly warranted the said buildings and the roofs thereon to be in all respects, fit, proper, habitable for use as dwelling units * * *.' (The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staff v. Lido Dunes, Inc.
...in the text, the following cases support that rule: Alabama Druid Homes, Inc. v. Cooper, 272 Ala. 415, 131 So.2d 884 Arizona Allen v. Reichert, 73 Ariz. 91, 237 P.2d 818 Georgia Walton v. Petty, 107 Ga.App. 753, 131 S.E.2d 655 Illinois Coutrakon v. Adams, 39 Ill.App.2d 290, 188 N.E.2d 780 (......
-
Columbia Western Corp. v. Vela
...which stated: "It is the general rule of law that implied warranties as to quality or condition do not apply to realty. Allen v. Reichert, 73 Ariz. 91, 237 P.2d 818." Voight arose from the failure of an air conditioning system sold as part of a new house. The trial court gave judgment for t......
-
Sarnicandro v. Lake Developers, Inc., A--191
...,960; Kilmer v. White, 254 N.Y. 64, 171 N.E. 908 (Ct.App.1930); Combow v. Kansas City Ground Investment Co., above; Allen v. Reichert, 73 Ariz. 91, 237 P.2d 818 (Sup.Ct.1951); Berger v. Burkoff, 200 Md. 561, 92 A.2d 376 (Ct.App.1952); see 2 Harper and James, above, at pages 1518 and 1520; L......
-
Druid Homes, Inc. v. Cooper, 1 Div. 913
...value, on a variety of circumstances, none of which are reducible to a common measure. * * *" To the same effect see: Allen v. Reichert, 73 Ariz. 91, 237 P.2d 818; Shapiro v. Kornicks, 103 Ohio App. 49, 124 N.E.2d 175; Kerr v. Parsons, 83 Ohio App. 204, 82 N.E.2d 303; Harmon Nat. Real Estat......