Brown v. Reichling

Citations

• 86 Kan. 640
• 121 P. 1127
• 1912 Kan. LEXIS 358

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Vendor and Purchaser — Contract—Abstract of Title — Default — Specific Performance. Where in a contract for the sale of land the seller agrees to furnish an abstract showing a clear title, and the buyer to pay the purchase price on a certain day, when a deed is to be delivered, the buyer is not in default for failure to make payment on the day named when at that time he has made a reasonable objection to the title and abstract, with respect to a matter which apparently admits of correction, and no effort to that end has been made by the seller.</p> <p>2. - Same. The fact that one of the deeds under which the seller derives title contains a misdescription of the property, resulting from a mistake on the part of the draftsman, affords grounds for a reasonable objection.</p> <p>3. - Same. The situation is not altered by the fact that • after the objection was made the draftsman, without authority from the grantors, changed the description in the deed, and caused corresponding changes to be made in the record and in the abstract.</p> <p>4. - Same. Under the circumstances stated in the foregoing paragraphs the right of the buyer to enforce the specific performance of the contract is not barred by the fact that upon the day fixed for payment he did not have money sufficient for the purpose, nor property upon which he could have raised it, where he had made arrangements by which he could have borrowed the necessary amount by using the land he was buying, with the other property, as security, had the title been marketable.</p>