Kasal v. Hlinka
| Decision Date | 31 May 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,409 - (33) |
| Parties | JOSEPH KASAL v. THOMAS HLINKA and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Le Sueur county to have a certain deed canceled; to have defendants execute to plaintiff a full warranty deed of the premises upon payment of the purchase price by plaintiff and to recover $1,200 damages for retaining possession of the premises. With the exception of the execution of the contract, the allegations of the complaint were denied in the separate answers of Emily and Joseph Chromy. The case was tried before Morrison, J., who made findings and as conclusions of law found that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the contract that he was not entitled to any relief as to Annie Hlinka and ordered that the action be dismissed as to her and that plaintiff was entitled to damages against defendant Thomas Hlinka in the sum of $100. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Executory contract of sale -- specific performance by assignee.
Where the purchaser under an executory contract for the purchase of land acquires the legal title from the vendor, after having assigned his interest in the contract to a third person, the assignee may have specific performance against the assignor to the extent of the latter's interest in the property so acquired, though such assignor's wife did not join in the assignment; but no relief can be had against the wife.
Construction of assignment.
Where the purchaser under an executory contract for the purchase of land assigns, without the joinder of his wife, his interest thereunder for a certain consideration, part of which is paid in cash, and by the terms of the assignment it is provided that in case of "disagreement" the portion of the price so paid shall be returned to the assignee, a subsequent demand by the assignee upon the assignor for a perfect title by warranty deed from the assignor and his wife, and the refusal of such demand by reason of the wife's refusal to join in the deed, constitutes a "disagreement;" and hence specific performance cannot be had against the assignor upon his subsequent acquisition of the legal title from his vendor.
Specific performance against assignor.
In such case, the assignee not having any right to specific performance against his assignor, it follows that he cannot have such relief against such assignor's vendor, though the latter conveys the property involved to such assignor after notice of the assignment.
E. W Komerak and Moonan & Moonan, for appellant.
A. J. Edgerton, for respondents.
Action to cancel a deed and to enforce specific performance of a contract to convey land. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. On the trial the court dismissed the action as to the defendants Chromy. Thereafter findings were filed directing the dismissal of the action as to the defendant Annie Hlinka on the merits, and determining that the plaintiff was not entitled to the specific performance of the contract alleged in the complaint, but should recover from the defendant Thomas Hlinka the sum of $100, without interest and without costs or disbursements; and it was ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. From an order denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, the plaintiff appealed.
As observed in the appellant's brief: "There is practically no dispute in the evidence as to any of the facts."
It appears that on January 13, 1909, the defendant Chromy, being then the owner of the west half of the southwest quarter of section 15, town 112, range 23, in Le Sueur county, his wife joining with him therein, entered into a contract in writing with the defendant Thomas Hlinka and one Joseph Picha, for the sale of the said premises to them jointly for the sum of $6,660, of which $60 was then and there paid in cash, and $6,600 was agreed to be paid on or before March 15, 1909. This contract obligated the Chromys to convey the said land to Hlinka and Picha, or their assigns, by deed of warranty, upon the performance on the part of Hlinka and Picha of their part of the agreement, and further provided that all covenants therein contained should extend to and be obligatory upon the heirs, personal representatives and assigns of the respective parties thereto. A railroad traversed the said land, and 29.04 acres thereof were situated west of the said railroad company's right of way. Shortly after the execution of the contract mentioned, it was orally agreed between the parties thereto that upon the payment of the consideration therein mentioned the said Chromys would convey to Hlinka the tract last above mentioned, and to Picha the remainder of the land covered by the written contract. Thereafter and on January 16, 1909, the said Thomas Hlinka executed a writing as follows:
On the same day the plaintiff paid the said Hlinka $100 on the said transaction, and it was then and there orally agreed that Hlinka would convey to the plaintiff thereunder only the 29.04 acres above mentioned. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial