Cade v. Brown

• Decision Date: 21 November 1890
• Citation: 25 P. 457,1 Wash. 401
• Parties: CADE v. BROWN.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

25 P. 457

1 Wash. 401

CADE v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 21, 1890

Error to superior court, King county.

Ronald & Piles, for plaintiff in error.

Jacobs & Jenner and Lewis & Gilman, for defendant in error.

SCOTT J.

Plaintiff claims he entered into a parol agreement with defendant for the purchase of a tract of land, being part of a larger tract owned by defendant. He also claims the defendant took him upon the premises, traced the boundaries of the land in question, and placed him in the possession thereof; that, in pursuance of the agreement, plaintiff kept possession of the premises, and made valuable improvements thereon with the knowledge and consent of defendant, and also purchased and placed upon the land certain lumber to be used by him in erecting a building thereon, which lumber subsequently became valueless to him through the breach of the defendant; and further, that he tendered full compliance with the contract upon his part; that the defendant refused to comply therewith, and sold the land to another person whereupon plaintiff brought this action at law to recover his damages. Upon the trial plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that the measure of damages he was entitled to was the value of the land at the date of defendant's breach of the contract, together with the amount expended by plaintiff in making said improvements, less the purchase price plaintiff was to pay for the land. The court refused to give the instructions, but directed the jury, if they found for the plaintiff, to assess as his damages an amount equal to the reasonable value of the improvements made by him, to which plaintiff excepted.

It fairly appears from the whole case that the proof tended to show the land had greatly increased in value; and while the instructions asked by plaintiff were not correct in asking pay for his improvements in addition to the value of the land at the time of defendant's breach, as the value of the land at that time would include the improvements made thereon, and would have resulted in giving plaintiff pay twice for his improvements, which was properly refused, yet the instruction given by the court was also erroneous. The measure of the damages was the value of the land at the time of the breach, less the price plaintiff was to pay therefor together with any special damage plaintiff might prove in purchasing lumber to erect a building upon the...