Park v. McCoy
| Decision Date | 31 August 1922 |
| Docket Number | 17007. |
| Citation | 121 Wash. 189,208 P. 1098 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | PARK v. McCOY et ux. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater, Judge.
Action by A. J. Park against J. D. McCoy and wife. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Jas. A Dougan, of Seattle, for appellant.
Byers & Byers, of Seattle, for respondents.
On or about January 22, 1921, Turner, Hutchinson & Co., real estate agents in Seattle, representing the appellant, and the respondents, negotiated a deal for the sale of certain real estate presumed to belong to the appellant. At that time the agreement was reduced to a writing called an earnest -money receipt. This instrument provided that the real estate agents were selling, on behalf of the appellant '2 1/4 acres, a portion of the S. 1/2 and the S.E. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of section 7, Tp. 26 N., R. 4 E. W. M.' for a consideration of $5,400, $500 of which was to be paid down in cash, and $1,500 more upon the acceptance of the title by the respondents, at which time a formal contract was to be entered into between the appellant and the respondents, which would recognize that $2,000 of the purchase price had been paid, and that the balance would be paid on certain monthly payments, and when all the payments had been made the appellant was to give a clear title. This so-called earnest-money receipt further provided that an abstract of title to the property would be furmished to the respondents and they should have five days within which to examine it, for the purpose of determining whether the title to the property was satisfactory to them. This instrument was executed by the real estate agents and by the respondents, and in writing approved by the appellant. At the time of executing the earnest-money receipt, the respondents gave to the appellant their check for $500, being the money agreed to be paid at the execution of the instrument.
Shortly thereafter an abstract of title was furnished.
Respondents raised objection to the title on account of three old judgments, which appeared to be liens on the property. The appellant at once caused these judgments to be satisfied. At about this stage of the proceedings the appellant caused to be drawn a formal agreement between himself and the respondents as contemplated by the earnest-money receipt, and submitted it to the respondents, with a request for the payment of the additional $1,500 agreed to be paid down in cash. This formal instrument was never executed by the respondents, and they refused to make any further payments, apparently on the ground that the property which the appellants intended to convey to them was not the identical property which was described in the earnest-money receipt, and for the further reason that the appellant at that time was not the owner of any portion of the property but that he had agreed to purchase it from Mr. McCall on monthly payments. The respondent notified the bank upon which his check for the $500 had been drawn not to pay it. Appellant thereupon brought suit on the check to recover the amount of $500. The respondents answered, denying that they owed that or any sum, and further pleaded that the check was given in pursuance of a certain agreement to purchase certain lands of the appellant, and that the appellant was not in position to, and was not willing to, carry out the terms of such agreement, and that therefore the consideration for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillmore v. Green
...claim restitution. Litel v. Marsh, 33 Wash.2d 441, 206 P.2d 300. Plaintiff urges that her right to recover is supported by Park v. McCoy, 121 Wash. 189, 208 P. 1098. The Park case is distinguishable here for the same reasons we distinguished it in Erckenbrack v. Jenkins, supra, where we sai......
-
Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC
...the purchase and sale agreement, in contrast to the legal description contained in the Agreement. Kofmehl relies on Park v. McCoy, 121 Wash. 189, 192, 208 P. 1098 (1922), where we held that the buyer could rescind an earnest-money contract that contained a different legal description of the......
-
Sloman v. Cutler
...Iowa, 176;McPheeters v. Ronning, 95 Minn. 164, 103 N. W. 889;Spilman v. New Rockford Inv. Co., 52 N. D. 169, 201 N. W. 691;Park v. McCoy, 121 Wash. 189, 208 P. 1098. Others have sustained validity: Olcott v. Heermans, 3 Hun. (N. Y.) 431; Cranston v. Wheeler, 37 Hun. 63; Farone v. Hall, 128 ......
-
Paperchase Partnership v. Bruckner
...agreement towards [the original vendor] so as to bring herself into privity with her." Id. at 157, 184 P. at 904. In Park v. McCoy, 121 Wash. 189, 208 P. 1098 (1922), the court ruled that an "entirely new and independent contract for sale" by the vendee under a land sale contract was not a ......
-
Table of Cases
...Paris American Corp. v. McCausland, 52 Wn.App. 434, 759 P.2d 1210 (1988), review denied, 111 Wn.2d 1034 (1989): 17.7(3)(a) Park v. McCoy, 121 Wash. 189, 208 P. 1098 (1922): 10.7(15) Parker v. D'Acres, 2 Wash. Terr. 439, 7 P. 893 (1885), aff'd, 130 U.S. 43 (1889): 20.2, 20.12 Parks v. Lepley......
-
§10.7 - Elements of the Agreement
...sell is not a violation of the provision in the original contract not to assign or transfer any interest in the contract. Park v. McCoy, 121 Wash. 189, 208 P. 1098 (16) Disclosure of agency or nonagency RCW 18.86.030(g) requires that a real estate licensee make a written disclosure of agenc......