Hoffman v. Partridge

Decision Date03 January 1949
Docket NumberNo. 9750.,9750.
Citation84 US App. DC 224,172 F.2d 275
PartiesHOFFMAN v. PARTRIDGE.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Irving B. Yochelson, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Wilbur L. Gray, Solomon Grossberg and Isadore Brill, all of Washington, D. C., appeared on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Daniel Partridge, III, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, CLARK, and WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to Mrs. Grace Partridge, who, as plaintiff, sought damages from Mrs. Helen Draper Hoffman for breach of a contract to sell and convey real estate. Then, after hearing evidence, the court awarded damages in the sum of $15,200 plus title expense. Mrs. Hoffman appeals.

The appellant was the owner of a seventeen-room residence in Chevy Chase, which was quite old and badly in need of repairs. She authorized Mrs. Partridge, a real estate sales agent, to sell the house and lot for $34,000, less a commission of five per cent of that sum. Having tried unsuccessfully to find a purchaser at the authorized price, Mrs. Partridge decided to buy the property for her own account. Accordingly, on May 19, 1946, she called on Mrs. Hoffman, who was an elderly woman confined to her bed by illness, and presented to her a written offer to purchase the property for $32,300, to be paid in this manner: $2,000 tendered with the offer, $1,300 to be paid in cash at the time of conveyance, a first deed of trust of approximately $17,000 to be assumed, and the balance, in the sum of approximately $12,000 payable over a long term, to be secured by a second deed of trust. Mrs. Partridge explained that $32,300 was the amount which Mrs. Hoffman would have received had she sold the property to a customer and deducted the agreed commission.

The offer included these words:

"* * * The seller agrees to deliver her permit from the D. C. for the installation of an additional kitchen in the house, making it a two family dwelling. This offer expires at 6 PM May 20th 1946."

Mrs. Hoffman's signature appears at the foot of the document with the date "May 21, 1946" before it. The appellant did not convey the property to the appellee but on May 23, 1946, conveyed it to a third person for $34,000 in cash, which included payment of the mortgage debt of about $17,000. Mrs. Partridge then instituted this suit in which she alleged the property had a value of approximately $47,500 on May 19, 1946, and that she had therefore been damaged in the sum of $15,200 by the appellant's failure to convey to her.

The appellant points out that the property is not in the District of Columbia but is in Maryland in an area restricted to one-family dwellings and consequently argues that performance was impossible because the house could not be used as a two-family dwelling. She also urges that the appellee's offer to buy which specified a time for its duration terminated by the lapse of the time specified therein, and that it could not be accepted thereafter.1 The appellee sought to avoid the application of that principle by testifying that both parties were confused as to the day of the month and that actually the contract was signed by both on May 19, 1946.

We are not now concerned with those questions, nor with others which inhere in the record, such as the propriety of the measure of damages, because we think the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.

The answer, which was twice amended, contained the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Abraham v. Graphic Arts Intern. Union
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • August 14, 1981
    ...at 405, 514 F.2d at 827; Washington v. Cameron, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 391, 396, 411 F.2d 705, 710 (1969); Hoffman v. Partridge, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 225, 172 F.2d 275, 276 (1949); Wittlin v. Giacalone, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 21, 154 F.2d 20, 21 (1946).25 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, ......
  • Short v. Hotel Riviera, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1963
    ...* Movant has the burden of demonstrating clearly that there is no genuine issue of a material fact to be determined. Hoffman v. Partridge, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 172 F.2d 275. * * * The various agreements between the defendants, their correspondence and notations found in their files, copies ......
  • Whitney v. Mallet
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • December 14, 1983
    ...the absence of genuine issue of fact and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the mover. Hoffman v. Partridge, 172 F.2d 275 (D.C.Cir.1949). In a Section 1983 action, as in others, inferences to be drawn from underlying facts contained in moving party's material......
  • United States v. General Ry. Signal Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • November 17, 1952
    ...judgment. Unless there exists a genuine issue of a material fact, it would be wasteful to deny such a motion. Hoffman v. Partridge, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 172 F. 2d 275; Whitaker v. Coleman, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 305; Ramsouer v. Midland Valley R. Co., 8 Cir., 135 F.2d 101, 105-106; Swift & Co. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT