Case ID: or_61/html/0114-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McBride", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued February 7,
    decided February 20, 1912.
    BUSHNELL v. DUMBECK.
    [121 Pac. 6.]
    Specific Performance — Contracts Enforceable.
    A contract to convey land cannot be specifically enforced where the location of a water right which was to be reserved to the grantor was never agreed upon, for there was no meeting of the minds on conditions of the sale.
    From Douglas: James W. Hamilton, Judge.
    
      Statement by Mr. Justice McBride.
    This is a suit by Henry Bushnell and Kittie Bushnell against M. T. Dumbeck and John Dumbeck, to compel specific performance of a contract to convey land. Defendants had a decree in the court below, and plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    For appellants there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Coshow & Rice, and Mr. Charles L. Hamilton, with an oral argument by Mr. Dexter Rice.
    
    For respondents there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Cardwell & Watson and Mr. John T. Long, with an oral argument by Mr. James O. Watson and and Mr. Long.
    
   Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question is whether the parties ever agreed upon the location of a water right which was to be reserved to the grantor. If that was never settled upon and agreed, there was no complete meeting of minds upon the conditions of the sale, and therefore no agreement which can be specifically enforced.

We have carefully considered the testimony, and conclude that the findings of the circuit court are in accordance therewith. The law applicable to the facts as we find them is too well settled to require discussion, and it is needless to enter into a detailed analysis of the testimony which would consume much space in the reports and be of no permanent value or interest to anybody.

The decree is affirmed. Affirmed.