Johnson v. Lara

• Decision Date: 16 September 1908
• Citation: 50 Wash. 368,97 P. 231
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON v. LARA et al.

97 P. 231

50 Wash. 368

JOHNSON v. LARA et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 16, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. E. Morris, Judge.

Suit by J. B. Johnson against Marcellus Lara and wife and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Godman & Embree and Farrell, Kane & Stratton, for appellant.

John G Barnes, for respondents Marcellus Lara and wife.

James Kiefer, for respondent Seattle Country Club.

MOUNT J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to enforce specific performance of a contract for the purchase of 267 acres of land in King county. After issues were joined, the cause was tried to the court. No findings of fact were made, but the action was dismissed as to plaintiff, and a decree quieting defendants' title was entered. The plaintiff appeals.

It appears that respondents Lara and wife were on September 15 1906, the owners of the land in question. On that date they entered into a written contract with the appellant Johnson whereby they agreed to sell and convey to Johnson the lands in controversy for the price of $50,000. At the time the contract was signed, Johnson paid $500 on the purchase price. The contract provided that the vendors Lara and wife should furnish to the vendee an abstract of title and that the vendee should have 20 days thereafter to examine the same and notify the vendors of any defects or objections to the title of the land. The contract also rovided as follows: 'In the event the title to said property or any part thereof is not good, marketable, and merchantable, or is not made good, marketable and merchantable by the said first parties (Lara and wife) within a reasonable time after objections to such title have been pointed out as aforesaid by the second party (Johnson) his heirs or assigns, then the said first party shall, upon demand therefor, pay back to the said second party, his heirs or assigns, the said sum of $500, and in that event this contract shall terminate and be at an end.' After this contract was entered into, the respondents Lara and wife had an abstract of title prepared, and the same was delivered to appellant. Thereafter, and within 20 days, the abstract was examined and 46 objections were made to the title by appellant. On October 10, 1906, the appellant and respondent Marcellus Lara met and considered the objections made to the title. The evidence is in conflict as to all that transpired at this meeting. It is clear, however, that the respondent Lara insisted that the title was good with the exception of two certain mortgages and an option contract which he agreed to release, and that the other objections were frivolous; that it would be impossible for him to meet them; and that he could not and would not do so. It is also clear that the appellant insisted on many objections, and that the title was not good and was not satisfactory to him. Thereupon the respondent Lara notified appellant that, unless he paid the balance due in tend days as provided by the contract, the contract would be forfeited. The respondent, after the expiration of 10 days, treated the contract as at an end. On February 18, 1907, the...