Jackson v. White

• Decision Date: 06 January 1919
• Docket Number: 14927.
• Citation: 177 P. 667,104 Wash. 643
• Parties: JACKSON v. WHITE et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

177 P. 667

104 Wash. 643

JACKSON v. WHITE et ux.

No. 14927.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 6, 1919

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; W. A. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by William Jackson against S. C. White and wife. Judgment after trial without a jury for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. W Langhorne, of Chehalis, for appellants.

A. E Rice, of Chehalis, for respondent.

MITCHELL J.

On October 6, 1917, S. C. White, for himself and wife, entered into a written contract with William Jackson for the sale of real estate in Lewis county. The contract was signed by both parties. It did not contain any clause with reference to forfeiture or liquidated damages. In effect it provided that White sold and agreed to transfer by warranty deed, to Jackson, 78 acres of land, which is described, for $10,500. $500 was paid in cash. Jackson was to give a mortgage on the property for $3,500, and the balance, $6,500, was to be paid upon delivery of the deed at the bank in Chehalis on October 9, 1917. Title to the land was to be merchantable or $500 returned. Possession was to be given November 1, 1917. Abstract was furnished on date of the contract.

Under legal advice Jackson found fault with the title as disclosed by the abstract, and so reported, in detail, to White on October 9, 1917. White confessed the defect, and promised to correct it. A few days later he called Jackson's attention to another deed he had gotten, which was not satisfactory to either party. Still further effort was made by White to correct the title. On October 22, 1917, Jackson declined to wait longer for completing the title, and demanded of White the return of the $500 cash payment, which demand was refused. On the same day and at the same time White offered to Jackson deeds of conveyance, one of which he had just received, claiming they were sufficient, and demanded that Jackson perform his part of the contract. Jackson contended the deeds were not adequate to correct the defect complained of, and refused to perform. On October 24, 1917, White wrote and Jackson received a notice as follows:

'Chehalis, Washington, Oct. 24, 1917.

'Whiliam Jackson, Chehalis, Wash.--Dear Sir: Complying with your agreement with me for the purchase of the Goetz Farm, I have deposited full warranty deed from myself and wife to you and wife, made by us Oct. 9, 1917, together with the $3,500.00 which I was to loan you, accompanied by a note and mortgage to be executed by you and wife for this money completed abstract is also deposited there, showing complete merchantable title, and ask that you complete your part of the agreement to purchase the Goetz Farm by assignment of certificates of deposit under the terms of the agreement.

'Am willing to meet yourself and attorney at any time not later than Monday, Oct. 29, 1917, at 3 p. m., at the Security State Bank at Chehalis, Wash., to complete the matter with you, after which I shall conclude that you rescind the contract and forfeit the $500 paid as a deposit and applied as liquidated damages for non-compliance.

'Respectfully yours,

S. C. White.'

The deed of conveyance referred to in the notice was the same one refused by Jackson on October 22, 1917. Jackson did not comply with the terms of the notice. On November 1, 1917 White and wife disposed of 38 acres of the land to a third party. Thereafter Jackson instituted this action to recover the $500 cash payment. White and wife resisted the suit by an answer of denials and an alleged affirmative defense, setting up an offer antedating suit to perform on their part, and failure on the part of Jackson to perform, together with a claim of forfeiture of the $500 on account of the failure to comply with the terms of the written notice of October 24, 1917. In their answer they do not offer to comply with the terms of the contract of October 6, 1917, and demand performance on the part of Jackson, but content themselves with claiming and demanding judgment for the...