Lindholm v. Patrick

Citations

• 107 Wash. 243
• 181 P. 876

Syllabus

<p>Specific Performance (47)—Demand and Refusal—Evidence— Sufficiency. In an action for specific performance of a contract whereby defendant agreed to purchase a certificate of sale of property to be bid in for his benefit, plaintiff sustained the burden of proof as to demand and refusal to perform, where the evidence showed a specific demand by an attorney and readiness on plaintiff’s part to perform and defendant’s refusal, the land having in the meantime been sold on the foreclosure of a prior mortgage.</p> <p>Action (10)—Legal ob Equitable. An action to compel the specific performance of a contract whereby defendant agreed to purchase and pay for a certificate of sale, is not an action for damages in the sense of excluding equitable jurisdiction.</p> <p>Specific Pebfoemance (31-1)—Condition Precedent — Tender. Where a tender of performance was made and absolutely refused, the continuance of the tender is not a prerequisite to the maintenance of an action for specific performance of the contract on the part of the defendant.</p> <p>Same (5)—Defenses—Failure of Title. An agreement by á defendant, a mortgagor, to purchase a certificate of sale on the foreclosure of a second mortgage, bid in for his benefit by plaintiff, is not excused by the foreclosure of the first mortgage, since such loss was defendant’s fault in failing to discharge his own obligation to pay the same.</p>