Gottwald v. Weeks
Decision Date | 19 October 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 4153.,4153. |
Citation | 41 N.M. 18,63 P.2d 537 |
Parties | GOTTWALD et al.v.WEEKS et al. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Dona Ana County; James B. McGhee, Judge.
Suit by Julia L. Gottwald and others against W. R. Weeks and Dora D. Weeks. From an adverse decree, the plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Statute providing that, in suit by or against heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns of deceased, opposite or interested party to suit should not obtain verdict, judgment, or decision by his own evidence in respect to matter occurring before death of deceased, unless such evidence was corroborated by some other material evidence, was satisfied, where books of party to suit against heirs of deceased corroborated credits due him from deceased. Comp.St.1929, § 45-601.
Edward C. Wade, Jr., of El Paso, Tex., for appellants.
W. C. Whatley, of Las Cruces, for appellees.
From a decree in an accounting following a mutual rescission of a contract for purchase and sale of real estate, this appeal is prosecuted. We will recite only facts necessary to a decision.
In the year of 1927 appellees (husband and wife) contracted to sell and convey to H. M. Gottwald and the appellant Julia L. Gottwald (husband and wife) certain real estate in consideration of $12,700 paid and to be paid. Gottwald died November 1, 1931, and appellant Julia L. Gottwald and the other appellants (his minor children) are his heirs at law and succeeded to his estate. This action was brought in January, 1932, to cancel the contract of sale and purchase and for an accounting. After the suit was filed, appellants abandoned the land, and appellees immediately took possession and conveyed it by warranty deed to another.
[1] The court concluded there was a mutual rescission of the contract and that the parties should be placed in statu quo. The parties acquiesced in this conclusion and it is binding here, though we do not determine whether it is correct. But appellants disagree with the court's conclusion that such restoration entitled appellees to a credit for a 50 per cent. depreciation in the market value of the land, resulting from the economic depression, which was allowed them by the court. The conclusion of the court is stated in the following language: “That plaintiffs, at the time of the institution of this suit, were not entitled to rescind, but that by reason of the conduct of defendants in taking possession of said premises, and conveying same away, as the Court finds was done in June, 1932, the defendant should be held to have acquiesced in such rescission, so that it was a mutual rescission of said contract, which entitled plaintiffs to recover back all that had been paid on the purchase price, after accounting for the rental value during the time they were in possession, and for the depreciation in the market value of the property between the time of entering into the alleged contract and the time of the rescission by the plaintiff in 1932.”
[2] The court erred in allowing the credit complained of. The restoration of the status quo ante contemplates the return to each of the parties of that with which he parted, with compensation for its use or injury. This includes the return of the purchase money paid and interest thereon to the purchaser by the vendor, and the payment of the fair value of the use of the land, generally reckoned as its fair rental value, and consequential damages for waste or other injury to the real estate, caused by acts of the purchaser, to be paid by him to the vendor. The territorial Supreme Court in Daly v. Bernstein, 6 N.M. 380, 28 P. 764, 767, stated:
[3] There are but few authorities on the identical question here presented, but these hold that the purchaser is not chargeable with a depreciation in the market value of the real estate caused by economic conditions.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKinney v. Gannett Co., Inc., CIV-78-630 C.
...from sale of its juice. McKinney points to case law in New Mexico to support his prayer for ancillary damages. In Gottwald v. Weeks, 41 N.M. 18, 63 P.2d 537 (1936), the court in dicta stated that a seller of land may rescind and get back the property, a fair rental value for use of the prop......
-
Ledbetter v. Webb
...by the Webbs. See Robison v. Katz, 94 N.M. 314, 610 P.2d 201 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 94 N.M. 675, 615 P.2d 992 (1980); Gottwald v. Weeks, 41 N.M. 18, 63 P.2d 537 (1936). The uncontroverted testimony is that: (1) the Webbs closed the business without prior notice to the Ledbetters; (2) the ......
-
Robison v. Katz
...Generally, the purchaser is allowed to rescind a contract only if he can place the vendor in the status quo ante. Gottwald v. Weeks, 41 N.M. 18, 63 P.2d 537 (1936); 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 512 (1964). However, this rule need not be iron-clad, as the trial court assumed. In several states, ......
-
Thrams Et Ux. v. Block Et Ux.
...the consideration paid them, with interest, less the rental value of the property while in plaintiffs' possession. Gottwald et. al. v. Weeks. et al., 41 N.M. 18, 63 P.2d 537. A number of questions have arisen regarding the recovery by plaintiffs of the expenses incurred by them in moving up......