Title: Murdock v. Pope
Citation: 396 P.2d 841
Docket Number: 20693
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 1964

396 P.2d 841 (1964) Robert L. MURDOCK and Margaret W. Murdock, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Denver POPE and Florence N. Pope, Defendants in Error. No. 20693. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. November 9, 1964. Rehearing Denied December 14, 1964. Paul Snyder, Castle Rock, for plaintiffs in error. Horatio S. Ramsey, Ralph C. Taylor, Littleton, for defendants in error. MOORE, Justice. We will refer to plaintiffs in error as defendants or as the Murdocks, and to defendants in error as plaintiffs or as the Popes. The plaintiffs sought a decree for specific performance of a written contract for the purchase and sales of certain lands, and for damages by way of abatement of a part of the purchase price because of the inability of the defendants to convey all the land described in the agreement. At the conclusion of the trial, in which a jury was impaneled in an advisory capacity with reference to issues of fact, the trial court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law; it made reference to the written contract between the parties under the terms of which eighty acres of land in Douglas county were to be sold by the Murdocks, for which the Popes were to pay the sum of $35,000.00 of which $10,400.00 had been paid upon the execution of the contract. The findings of the trial court include the following: Certain other exceptions were made, none of which are material to the issues involved. The findings continue: Based upon the above findings, the trial court entered its judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. We have carefully examined the full record and find therein ample evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court. The questions remaining for consideration are: (1) Whether the trial court erred in ordering that the purchase price of the property be reduced by the value of the land which the Murdocks were unable to convey; and (2) whether the court erred in awarding the credit of $2,000.00 as damages suffered by the Popes in connection with the acquisition of an access road to a public highway. *843 With reference to question (1) above, the following decisions of this court fully support the judgment of the trial court: The Florence Oil &amp; Refining Co. et al. v. McCandless, 26 Colo. 534, 58 P. 1084; Mullen v. Bromley, 21 Colo.App. 399, 122 P. 66; Rule v. Link et al., 84 Colo. 82, 267 P. 1005; Kuper v. Scroggins et al., 127 Colo. 416, 257 P.2d 412. From Rule v. Link, supra, where a similar factual situation was present, we quote, inter alia: From Kuper v. Scroggins, supra, we quote: It follows from the rule above announced that the $2000.00 credit, the expenditure of which will be necessary to provide ingress and egress to and from the land actually acquired by the Popes, was fully justified. Access to and from the property was a part of the original contract. The Murdocks were unable to supply it; to the extent of the value thereof the Popes were entitled to an abatement. The judgment is affirmed. SUTTON and DAY, JJ., concur.