Smith v. Kurtzenacker
| Decision Date | 17 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 22,066 |
| Citation | 180 N.W. 243,147 Minn. 398 |
| Parties | MAUD E. SMITH v. JOHN KURTZENACKER AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Wright county to cancel a contract for the sale of certain real property and to recover $2,300. The substance of the pleadings will be found in the second and third paragraphs of the opinion. The case was tried before Giddings, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff's motion for amended findings and conclusions or for a new trial, was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Trial -- reopening of case for more evidence -- review on appeal.
1. The trial court may, in its discretion after trial and decision of a cause, reopen the case for further evidence on the application of either party, and an order of the kind will be reversed only when an abuse of discretion.
Vendor and purchaser -- rescission of executory contract for defect in record title.
2. In the absence of fraud, insolvency or other equitable considerations, or a contract stipulation requiring an abstract showing perfect title, a defect in the record title of the vendor in an executory contract for the sale of land existing at the date thereof, will constitute no ground for rescission by the vendee or justification for refusal to make deferred payments on the agreed purchase price of the property.
Vendor and purchaser -- title to be perfect at completion of contract.
3. All the vendee may rightfully insist upon in such case is that the title be perfect at the time fixed by the contract for final performance.
Vendor and purchaser -- allotment to mixed blood Indian -- vesting of record title.
4. The title of the land involved in this case, derived from the Federal government through an allotment to a mixed blood Indian of the White Earth Reservation, held to have completely vested of record in defendants prior to the date fixed for the performance of the contract; there was no fraud; the vendors are not insolvent, and the vendee cannot complain of a prior defect in the record title.
W. H. Cutting and S. A. Johnson, for appellant.
H. S. Whipple and R. J. Powell, for respondents.
Action to rescind a contract for the sale of certain real property and to recover the down payment made at the time the contract was entered into on the ground of fraudulent representations as to the title. Defendants had judgment and plaintiff appealed.
The complaint alleged in substance and effect that plaintiff was induced to enter into the contract by reason of the misrepresentations to her that defendant John Kurtzenacker was the absolute owner of the property, with the right of possession, when in fact he was not such owner or entitled to the possession of the land. The answer put the allegations of the complaint in this respect in issue, and thereon the cause came on for trial before the court without a jury. The court found the allegations of the complaint true and ordered judgment for plaintiff as prayed for therein with costs of suit. The decision was made and filed on December 27, 1918.
Thereafter on March 6, 1919, defendants moved the court, upon affidavits setting out the facts made the foundation of the motion, for an order reopening the case, with the privilege to defendants of presenting further evidence upon the issue of the title to the land. After hearing the parties the court granted the motion. Thereupon the parties entered into a stipulation providing for filing by defendants a supplemental answer and a reply thereto by plaintiff, and thereafter "that the cause may be noticed for trial by either party in the manner provided by statute." The cause subsequently came on for trial on the issue made by the supplemental answer and on the evidence then presented the trial court found that all the parties to the contract entered into the same in good faith; that though defendants did not have a perfect title to the land at the time the contract was entered into, they did possess a certain right and interest therein, which since the first decision was rendered had ripened into a complete title, and that they are in position to fully comply with the contract and convey to plaintiff, at the time fixed by the contract, namely, June 19, 1920, a fee simple title. Judgment was ordered to the effect that plaintiff take nothing by the action, and that defendants have their costs and disbursements. Judgment was entered accordingly. The decision was rendered in January, 1920, some four months prior to the time named in the contract for the final payment of the purchase price of the land and the execution of a proper deed conveying the same to plaintiff.
The facts in respect to the title are not in dispute. The land formerly was a part of the White Earth Indian Reservation...
To continue reading
Request your trial