Ely v. Joslin

Citations

• 111 Kan. 638
• 208 P. 628
• 1922 Kan. LEXIS 310

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Specific Performance — Sale of Land — Good Title Implied. In a contract for the sale of land there is an implication that the vendor has a good title and a right to convey unless such implication is expressly excluded by the terms of the contract.</p> <p>2. Same — Sale of Land — Imperfect Abstract — Investigation by Purchaser — No Unreasonable Delay. Although an abstract of title is not specifically required by the contract, if parties proceed on the theory that the vendor shall furnish evidence that he has a good title and a right to convey, and he does furnish an abstract as evidence of his title which shows defects in the title and which requires time for investigation by the purchaser and for the completion of the record of title, the vendor is not in a position to claim that the purchaser is in default while making such investigation if an unreasonable time is not taken for that purpose.</p> <p>3, Same — Sale of Land — Covenants of General Warranty Implied. The rule that “in the absence of express stipulation covering the subject, a deed with the usual covenants of warranty is implied” {Dewey v. Hines, 87 Kan. 834, 126 Pac. 1093), is followed and applied.</p> <p>4. Same — Sale of Land — Place of Payment of Pnce Designated in Contract. Under the negotiations and acts of the parties it is held that they fixed the place of payment for the land and the closing of the transaction at a depository bank, and not at the residence of the vendor.</p> <p>6. Same — Sale of Land — Useless Tender of Price Not Required. In order to put the vendor in default and warrant the commencement of an action for specific performance, a formal tender of the balance of the purchase price is not required where the vendor’s acts amount to a repudiation of the contract and show that a tender would be unavailing.</p>