Hoock v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 02 October 1894 |
| Citation | 60 N.W. 391,42 Neb. 87 |
| Parties | HOOCK v. BOWMAN. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Where the owner of real estate contracts in writing to sell and convey the same to another, and such contract is duly signed, witnessed, and acknowledged by such owner, and recorded in the office of the register of deeds in the county where such real estate is situate, then one who purchases and receives a conveyance of said real estate from said owner takes such real estate subject to the rights therein of the vendee in said contract.
2. In such case the vendee in said contract of sale is not entitled to a rescission thereof because of the sale and conveyance of the real estate by the owner to a third party.
Appeal from district court, Douglas county; Irvine, Judge.
Action by Agnes B. Hoock against Anna K. Bowman on a contract for the sale of lots by plaintiff to defendant, and to enforce a vendor's lien. From a judgment and decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.G. A. Rutherford, for appellant.
O'Brien & O'Brien, for appellee.
On the 25th day of June, 1888, Agnes B. Hoock, by her contract in writing of that date, agreed to sell to Anna K. Bowman lots 1 and 14 in block 1 in Hoock's subdivision of lots 15 and 16 in Brookline, in Douglas county, Neb. By the terms of the contract, Mrs. Bowman was to pay a certain part of the purchase money down, and the remainder to be paid in monthly installments; and, when all such payments were made, Mrs. Hoock was to convey the property to Mrs. Bowman by warranty deed. Mrs. Bowman having failed to make the payments as provided by the contract, Mrs. Hoock brought this suit in the district court of Douglas county against Mrs. Bowman, setting out the contract and its terms, alleging a failure of Mrs. Bowman to make her payments as agreed, and prayed for an accounting of the amount due her from Mrs. Bowman on the contract, and that, in case the amount found due should not be paid within a time fixed by the court, the property might be advertised and sold to pay such amount. To this action Mrs. Bowman interposed two defenses: (1) That, at the time of making said contract, Mrs. Hoock represented that said lots were corner lots; that lot 1 cornered on Park street and Western avenue, and that lot 14 cornered on Park street and Sawyer avenue; that such representations are false and fraudulent, and known by Mrs. Hoock, at the time they were made, to be false and fraudulent, and made for the purpose of deceiving Mrs. Bowman; that she (Mrs. Bowman) did not know how said lots were located; that she entered into the contract to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Olberg
...99 Cal. 259, 33 Pac. 848; Garberino v. Roberts, 109 Cal. 125, 41 Pac. 857; Webb v. Stephenson, 11 Wash. 342, 39 Pac. 952; Hoock v. Bowman, 42 Neb. 87, 60 N.W. 391; 39 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d Ed.) 667; Damon v. Weston, 77 Iowa 259, 42 N.W. Neither is there any force in appellant's argum......
-
Kreibich v. Martz
...the vendee's rights, if not under circumstances which put it out of the vendor's power to perform the contract. In the case of Hoock v. Bowman (Neb.) 60 N.W. 391, it held that, where the vendor conveyed to a stranger to the contract, which was recorded, such stranger took with notice of the......