Connor & Ryon, Inc. v. Boulad, 1624.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1955
• Docket Number: No. 1624.,1624.
• Citation: 114 A.2d 428
• Parties: CONNOR & RYON, Inc., a corporation, and Grayce E. Scheuch, Appellants, v. Adele BOULAD, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

Page 428

114 A.2d 428

CONNOR & RYON, Inc., a corporation, and Grayce E. Scheuch, Appellants, v. Adele BOULAD, Appellee.

No. 1624.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued April 25, 1955.

Decided May 24, 1955.

Joseph G. Weeda, Washington, D. C., with whom Joseph Lapiana, Jr., Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellants.

Herman Miller, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

This case grew out of an attempt by a seller of real estate to forfeit a $1,000 deposit placed with a broker by the purchaser. The purchaser sued for the return of the deposit and for certain title company charges. The trial court gave judgment to plaintiff for $1,042 against the seller and the broker. Defendants have brought this appeal.

The principal dispute at the trial seemed to be whether seller was prepared to give possession at settlement time, and whether the purchaser really wanted to go through with the deal; in other words, the case presented the familiar issue as to who had breached the contract. There was also a dispute as to the condition of the roof and whether seller had denied purchaser an opportunity to inspect the roof. In verbal findings announced at the conclusion of the trial the judge ruled in favor of plaintiff on all issues.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the seller had failed to give possession as required by the contract of sale or in accordance with a letter of instructions sent by purchaser to the title company. They also urge that the letter should be interpreted as a waiver of the right to actual possession and as a willingness to accept constructive possession.

Several years ago we ruled that where a contract for sale of realty required Vendors to give possession at time of settlement, failure to yield actual possession was a breach by vendors, and that "such breach is not mended or minimized by an offer of constructive possession." Metzler v. Iacone, D.C.Mun.App., 55 A.2d 81, 82. On the record before us we cannot say that the trial court departed from those basic principles or made any rulings not in harmony, with the law as we there stated it. There was evidence justifying the ruling that seller was not prepared to give actual, possession on the settlement date. There was testimony, only partially contradicted,"that a substantial amount of seller's belongings were still in the house; that these belongings consisted of living room furniture, kitchen equipment, a deep freeze, two lamps, several rugs, and twenty-five to thirty large packing boxes. It was also testified that on the settlement day the purchaser was ready to complete the deal, appeared at the title company with a deed of trust and sufficient cash...