Herrmann v. Hodin, 35502
| Decision Date | 27 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35502,35502 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Clyde H. HERRMANN, Respondent, v. George HODIN, individually, and as Executor of the Estate of Eve Hodin, deceased, Appellant, John H. Morse, doing business as John H. Morse Company, Defendant. |
Joseph P. Delay, Spokane, for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
George Hodin offered a part of his real property in Spokane county for sale. Clyde H. Herrmann, who was interested in buying it, and John H. Morse, Hodin's realtor, viewed the area, the corners of which Hodin had marked on the ground by wooden stakes. When Herrmann looked down the staked boundary line, it appeared to him that the proposed west line nearly bisected the barn, which had been represented to be located entirely upon the property being offered for sale. Morse assured Herrmann that Hodin would convey enough land to the west to clear the barn. Morse had a metes and bounds description of the staked area. Morse and Herrmann agreed upon the terms of sale and signed an earnest-money agreement which contained the metes and bounds description of the property, and these words: 'including sufficient land to clear the barn to the west.'
Herrmann and Hodin later could not agree on provisions of the contract which involved matters other than the area west of the barn. Herrmann then commenced an action against Hodin and Morse for damages and for specific performance of the earnest-money agreement. During the trial, Herrmann withdrew his cause of action for damages, and only the cause of action for specific performance of the earnest-money agreement remained. Morse was thereupon dismissed because he had no interest in the real estate.
At the close of plaintiff's evidence, Hodin moved for dismissal of the action for the reason that the earnest-money agreement did not contain a sufficient description to support an action for specific performance and, therefore, was void by virtue of the statute of frauds. The court denied the motion. Hodin stood upon the insufficiency of plaintiff's evidence and offered none. The court reformed the description by extending the entire west line of the property a sufficient distance to clear the barn. Hodin has appealed from the judgment which directed him to perform the contract.
The appeal presents a single question: Is a real-estate description in an earnest-money agreement which states, 'sufficient land to clear the barn to the west,' a memorandum definite enough to satisfy the statute of frauds and support an action for specific performance? We think not.
A real-estate description which defines the area to be conveyed as 'sufficient land to clear the barn' requires oral testimony to locate it. The earnest-money agreement does not refer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berg v. Ting
...to specific performance, the case which is cited for the proposition did not address the part performance doctrine. Herrmann v. Hodin, 58 Wash.2d 441, 364 [886 P.2d 571] P.2d 21 (1961), cited in Howell, 28 Wash.App. at 496, 624 P.2d 739. Given that the part performance doctrine may be appli......
-
Verbeek's Estate, In re
... ... Sherfey, 38 Wash.2d 886, 234 P.2d 489 (1951); Herrmann v. Hodin, 58 Wash.2d 441, 364 P.2d 21 ... Page 157 ... (1961). An inadequate legal ... ...
-
Ecolite Mfg. Co., Inc. v. R.A. Hanson Co., Inc.
...24 Wash.2d 586, 589, 166 P.2d 850 (1946), Martinson v. Cruikshank, supra at 568-69, , or specific performance, Herrmann v. Hodin, 58 Wash.2d 441, 443, 364 P.2d 21 (1961). See also Barth v. Barth, 19 Wash.2d 543, 556, 143 P.2d 542 (1943). The question here is whether attachment A to the agre......
-
Berg v. Ting
...Co., 28 Wash.App.494, 495-96, 624 P.2d 739 (citing Fosburgh v. Sando, 24 Wash.2d 586, 589, 166 P.2d 850 (1946) and Herrmann v. Hodin, 58 Wash.2d 441, 443, 364 P.2d 21 (1961) respectively), review denied, 95 Wash.2d 1021 Despite these well-established principles, the Bergs argue that before ......