Lenman v. Jones

Syllabus

<p>In the absence of fraud, ignorance of who the real vendee is does not relieve the vendor from specific performance of a contract to sell real estate.</p> <p>The vendor is not relieved of a contract to sell, absolute as to him, because he thought it gave the purchaser an option, but did not require him, to purchase.</p> <p>One who purchases from the vendee before completion of the contract to sell, not only the property but all rights of the vendee connected therewith, becomes the equitable owner of the property to the same extent as the original vendee and can compel specific performance of the original contract.</p> <p>The original vendee against whom no relief is asked and who has to the extent of his interest complied with the contract is not a necessary party to a suit brought by the subvendee against the original veñdor to compel specific performance.</p> <p>The contract to sell involved in this case being clear enough to indicate to lawyer and layman the purchaser, the seller, the land and the terms, it satisfies „the statute of frauds, Code, District of Columbia, § 1117.</p> <p>33 App. D. C. 7, affirmed.</p>