Johnson v. Johnson

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtDICKINSON
Citation44 N.W. 668,43 Minn. 5
PartiesJOHNSTON v JOHNSON.
Decision Date17 February 1890

43 Minn. 5
44 N.W. 668

JOHNSTON
v
JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 17, 1890.


[44 N.W. 668]


(Syllabus by the Court.)

Under a contract for the sale of land, providing for the payment of a part of the price within 20 days after an abstract showing a clear title should be presented to the purchaser, upon which payment the conveyance was to be made, if the vendee notifies the vendor that he is unable, for want of funds, to perform the contract on his part, he may be deemed to have relinquished his rights under it; and the vendor need not, in order to put the vendee in default, present an abstract of title or tender a deed. In such case it is not important that there was a cloud upon the title which the vendor was able and willing at once to remove.


Appeal from district court, Dakota county; CROSBY, Judge.

Chas. N. Akers, for appellant.

Johns, Michael & Johns, for respondent.


DICKINSON, J.

This is an action to cancel a contract for the sale of land. The case is presented here upon the pleadings and the findings of the court. It thus appears that on May 31, 1887, the plaintiff and one Gray, then owning the land, executed a contract with the defendant for the sale of the property to him for the sum of $18,000, of which $450 was to be paid at that time, and was so paid. Five thousand five hundred and fifty dollars was to be paid within 20 days after the delivery of an abstract showing a clear title, (at which time of payment the conveyance was to be made,) and the remainder of the price was to be paid subsequently. It was agreed that time should be of the essence of the contract. The abstract presented by the vendors showed that an action was then pending in which one Hamilton claimed title to a part of the land. The plaintiff, however, had arranged with Hamilton for a settlement of that action, and the defendant was notified of this. The vendors were willing and able to perform their part of the contract with the defendant, and the latter was so notified. The defendant, however, was not able to perform on his part, for the reason that he could not furnish the money necessary to be paid, and for that reason he did not comply with the contract on his part. He notified the vendors of his inability to perform, and in October, 1887, they contracted to sell the land to other parties. The plaintiff has acquired the interest of Gray in the land. The judgment of the district court was that the contract be canceled, and that the defendant was not entitled to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 17 July 1923
    ...376; Shively v. Water Co., 33 P. 848; Brimmer v. Salisbury, 140 P. 30; Parkside Realty Co. v. McDonald, 137 P. 21; Johnson v. Johnson, 44 N.W. 668; Ziehen v. Smith, 42 N.E. 1080, 148 N.Y. 558; Higgins v. Eagleton, 50 N.E. 287, 155 N.Y. 466; Carpenter v. Holcomb, 105 Mass. 280; Sleeper v. Ni......
  • Zirinsky v. Sheehan, No. 19353.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 11 August 1969
    ...Real Estate Agency v. Seeman, 147 Minn. 354, 180 N.W. 227 (1920); Grant v. Munch, 54 Minn. 111, 55 N.W. 902 (1893); Johnston v. Johnson, 43 Minn. 5, 44 N.W. 668 (1890). Forfeiture of down payments by a defaulting vendee is generally recognized throughout the common law of vendor-purchaser r......
  • Miller v. Snedeker, No. 37762
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 22 January 1960
    ...a question of fact, and the matter of resolving conflicts in the evidence belongs to the trial court. 1 This court in Johnston v. Johnson, 43 Minn. 5, 6, 44 N.W. 668, '* * * There was no necessity for their presenting a clear abstract of title or tendering a deed, when, for reasons wholly f......
  • Lang v. Hedenberg, Nos. 10833
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 4 April 1917
    ...title perfect. But defendant makes no pretense that he was ready, and able and willing to perform the contract.’ In Johnston v. Johnson, 43 Minn. 5, 44 N. W. 668, it was held that it was not important that there was a cloud on the title which could have been removed when the vendee [115 N.E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 17 July 1923
    ...376; Shively v. Water Co., 33 P. 848; Brimmer v. Salisbury, 140 P. 30; Parkside Realty Co. v. McDonald, 137 P. 21; Johnson v. Johnson, 44 N.W. 668; Ziehen v. Smith, 42 N.E. 1080, 148 N.Y. 558; Higgins v. Eagleton, 50 N.E. 287, 155 N.Y. 466; Carpenter v. Holcomb, 105 Mass. 280; Sleeper v. Ni......
  • Zirinsky v. Sheehan, No. 19353.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 11 August 1969
    ...Real Estate Agency v. Seeman, 147 Minn. 354, 180 N.W. 227 (1920); Grant v. Munch, 54 Minn. 111, 55 N.W. 902 (1893); Johnston v. Johnson, 43 Minn. 5, 44 N.W. 668 (1890). Forfeiture of down payments by a defaulting vendee is generally recognized throughout the common law of vendor-purchaser r......
  • Miller v. Snedeker, No. 37762
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 22 January 1960
    ...a question of fact, and the matter of resolving conflicts in the evidence belongs to the trial court. 1 This court in Johnston v. Johnson, 43 Minn. 5, 6, 44 N.W. 668, '* * * There was no necessity for their presenting a clear abstract of title or tendering a deed, when, for reasons wholly f......
  • Lang v. Hedenberg, Nos. 10833
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 4 April 1917
    ...title perfect. But defendant makes no pretense that he was ready, and able and willing to perform the contract.’ In Johnston v. Johnson, 43 Minn. 5, 44 N. W. 668, it was held that it was not important that there was a cloud on the title which could have been removed when the vendee [115 N.E......
  • 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