Stein v. Waddell
Decision Date | 27 March 1905 |
Citation | 37 Wash. 634,80 P. 184 |
Parties | STEIN et al. v. WADDELL et ux. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; W. R. Bell, Judge.
Action by Henry W. Stein and another, as executors of C. A. White deceased, and others, against Albert Waddell and wife. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Will H Thompson and Victor E. Palmer, for appellants.
Charles E. Patterson, for respondents.
On the 3d day of February, 1903, the plaintiffs and the defendants Waddell and wife, entered into a contract for the sale of real estate, the material parts of which are as follows:
The defendants, Waddell and wife, paid on account of this contract the sum of $5,000 at the time of its execution, and thereafter paid the sum of $900, in installments of $225, at various times; the last installment being paid on the 18th day of September, 1903. On the 10th day of October, 1903 this action was commenced for the purpose of declaring a forfeiture of said contract. Among the grounds of forfeiture were the nonpayment of the balance of the $5,000 due August 3, 1903, with interest; the nonpayment of taxes; an execution sale of the interest of the Waddells in the property on a judgment in favor of a third party; the filing of numerous liens against the property by third parties who had performed labor and made improvements at the instance of the Waddells; agreements on the part of the Waddells to sell portions of the land, etc. It was not claimed that any taxes had been allowed to accumulate against the property after the sale and before the commencement of the action, and it cannot be seriously claimed that the other matters above referred to constituted any breach of the contract of sale. The Waddells agreed to pay all taxes, assessments, and impositions that might be levied or imposed upon the property; but this covenant is clearly limited to impositions which would be a charge against the vendors' interest in the property, and was not a covenant that the purchasers would pay their own debts, or discharge obligations for which they and their interest in the property were alone liable. The complaint alleged that the interest and claim of the plaintiffs were paramount to all the claims above set forth, and the court so found. This is unquestionably true, so that the only breach of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCulloch v. Bauer
...Neb. 567, 120 N.W. 130; Davis v. Jeffries, 5 S.D. 352, 58 N.W. 816; Delaware Trust Co. v. Calm, 195 N.Y. 231, 88 N.E. 53; Stein v. Waddell, 37 Wash. 634, 80 P. 185; Codes 1905, §§ 5245, 5254; Arnett v. Smith, 11 N.D. 55, 88 N.W. 1037; Webb v. Hancher, 127 Iowa 269, 102 N.W. 1129; Martin v. ......
-
Abercrombie v. Stoddard
... ... other." (39 Cyc. 1377, and notes; Frink v ... Thomas, 20 Ore. 265, 25 P. 717, 12 L. R. A. 239; Stein ... v. Waddell, 37 Wash. 634, 80 P. 184.) ... "The ... default as to time may be waived by the conduct of the other ... party; as, by ... ...
-
Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Moody
...482; Scott v. Smith, 58 Or. 591, 115 P. 969. A contract precisely similar to that which is here involved was construed in Stein v. Waddell, 37 Wash. 634, 80 P. 184, in Judge Rudkin for the court said: 'It is first claimed that the covenants in this agreement are independent. A court will no......
-
Davis v. C. E. Downie Inv. Co.
...the vendor is under the duty of tendering a deed, or performance on his part, Before the vendee can be put in default. Stein v. Waddell, 37 Wash. 634, 80 P. 184; Bruggemann v. Converse, 47 Wash. 581, 92 P. Tacoma Water Supply Co. v. Dumermuth, 51 Wash. 609, 99 P. 741; Christy v. Baiocchi, 5......