Lancoure v. Dupre

• Decision Date: 19 May 1893
• Citation: 53 Minn. 301,55 N.W. 129
• Parties: LANCOURE v DUPRE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

53 Minn. 301

55 N.W. 129

LANCOUREvDUPRE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 19, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In an action by a vendee for a breach of contract to sell real property because of the inability of the vendor to convey good title, the former is entitled to recover of the vendor interest upon all moneys paid on the contract from the date of payment, whether the same was paid as principal or as interest; and is also entitled to recover such sums as he may have paid as taxes upon the premises, with interest from the dates of payment.

2. The general rule in such cases is that the vendee may also recover the value of improvements put on the land by him in good faith, in so far as such improvements may, at the time of the rescission of the contract, permanently enhance the value of the land.

3. As against these items of damage the vendor is entitled to offset the rental value of the premises, to be estimated without the improvements placed thereon by the vendee.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Otis, Judge.

Action by Olive Lancoure against Peter Dupre for a breach of contract to convey land. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Warner, Richardson & Lawrence, for appellant.

C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

The defendant, in the year 1877, sold to plaintiff the tract of land described in the complaint, and executed and delivered to her his bond for a deed. One half of the agreed purchase price was paid by plaintiff about the time of the purchase. Plaintiff went into possession, and remained until March 1, 1886, when she elected to rescind the contract, abandoned the premises, and brought this action to recover damages because of the failure and inability of defendant to convey a good title in accordance with the conditions of his bond. In this instrument it was stated that the premises to be conveyed were the same deeded by one Porter and his wife to Joseph Nadeau in the year 1874, and by said Nadeau and his wife to defendant, April 4, 1876. At the date of conveyance to defendant, Nadeau was a married man, as defendant well knew, but his wife at that time refused, and she has ever since refused, to join in the deed, or to consent in writing to the same. By reason of this refusal, defendant's title to the premises was and has remained defective, subject to the inchoate interest and estate of Nadeau's wife known as the “dower right.” In 1882, the plaintiff, desiring to make substantial improvements on the land, offered to pay the balance of the purchase price to defendant, providing he would convey a good title to her, but, discovering the defect before mentioned, she refused to accept his deed solely because of such defect. Thereupon the defendant assured her that he could and would secure a further and sufficient conveyance from Nadeau and his wife, so as to perfect his own title, and would convey the same to plaintiff, and that she could safely make the proposed improvements. At this time the balance of the purchase price was not due, although plaintiff, at her option, could pay it. Relying upon the statement in the bond as to the source of title, and representations that the defendant was able to convey a good title to the land, the plaintiff was induced to purchase; and, relying upon his further statements and representations that he could and would perfect his defective title, as well as upon the original statements and representations, the plaintiff placed betterments upon the land in 1882 at a cost of $800, as was found by the court. She had also, while in possession, paid the annual interest on account of the deferred purchase-price payment, and had also paid the taxes as they fell due for several years. The defendant was unable and has refused to perfect his title by deed or otherwise, and in March, 1886, as before stated, plaintiff took such steps as were essential to rescind the contract to purchase, and brought this action. This appeal is by plaintiff from a judgment entered in conformity with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court.

When ordering judgment for plaintiff, the court below recognized her right to recover the amount paid as part of the purchase price, with interest from the date of payment, and to recover the amounts she had paid as interest upon the deferred payment, and to recover the amounts paid for taxes. As against those sums it offset the rental value of the premises while plaintiff held possession. No interest was allowed her upon the amounts paid as interest on the deferred purchase-price payment, nor upon the sums annually paid as taxes, nor was interest allowed to defendant upon the amounts determined to be due to him as annual rental. Nor was anything awarded to plaintiff as compensation for the improvements...