Court Opinion

ID: 8032490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 03:17:03.400252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:01.037893
License: Public Domain

Day, J.
This is an action for specific performance of an executory contract for the sale of certain lands, brought by the assignee of the purchaser against the vendor. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance, with an abatement of the purchase price to the extent of the value of a house upon the premises, which had been destroyed by fire after the date of the contract. The plaintiff also prayed that, should specific performance with abatement from the purchase price be denied, the defendant be decreed to return to the plaintiff the purchase money which had theretofore been paid upon the contract. The trial court entered a decree for the plaintiff for specific performance, and allowed him an abatement of the purchase price to the extent of the insurance money which the defendant had collected. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals. He now asks that this court, upon a trial de novo, grant specific performance of the contract, and that it decree the loss occasioned by the destruction of the house to fall upon the vendor, and that the purchase price.be abated to the extent of the full value of the house.
The facts out of which the controversy arises are as follows: On'July 2/1919, the defendant, Martha Forrest,-who was the fee owner of the W.% of the N. W.% of section 11, township 9, range 7 east of the sixth p. m., in Lancaster county, Nebraska, entered into a written contract wtih one Jacob M. Miller, by the terms of which she agreed, upon the payment of the purchase price by *311said Miller in accordance with the provisions of the contract, to convey to him said lands by warranty deed free and clear of all encumbrance. The contract provided that the purchase price to be paid by Miller was $16,400, payable as follows: $1,000 cash at the time of the making of the contract, $5,400 on or before March 1, 1920, and Miller to execute a mortgage for $10,000 upon the lands due in ten years with interest at 5% per cent, payable semi-annually from March 1, 1920, with the privilege of paying instalments thereof on any interest paying date. The contract further provided that its covenants and agreements should be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns of the respective parties. The contract was assigned by Miller to William J. McGinley, the plaintiff, herein. At the time of the making of the contract the land Avas leased to a tenant until March 1, 1920, and full possession was not to be given to the purchaser until that date. He was, however, accorded the privilege of entering upon the stubble land and serving fall Avheat. This right he exercised. At the time of the execution of the contract there was on said premises a frame house, estimated to be worth, by the plaintiff’s witnesses, from $2,000 to $3,500, and by defendant’s witnesses as Ioav as $500. The defendant had insurance' upon the building in the sum of $500, which, after the destruction of the house by fire, was paid to the defendant. The house was destroyed by fire on January 15, 1920, through no fault or neglect of either of the parties. The defendant at the time Avas the owner of a fee simple title, and was in position to convey the land» in accordance with the terms of his contract, and, at the time, there Avas no default of the contract on the part of the purchaser. The sole question presented by the record is as to which of the parties, vendor or purchaser, shall suffer the loss of the building destroyed by fire. Of course, it would be competent for the parties to agree as to which of them should bear the loss in case of an accidental destruction of the property, but in the case before *312us the contract is silent upon that subject.
While the authorities are not entirely uniform, the great weight of judicial decisions, as well as text-writers, upon this subject support the view that where a contract for the sale of land contains no express provision as to which party shall bear the loss in case of destruction of the buildings thereon before the final delivery of the deed, or that the vendor should deliver the land with the buildings thereon in the same situation as when the contract was made, or words of similar import, and the buildings on the land are accidentally destroyed by fire, through no fault of either party, pending the contract and before conveyance, the vendor having at the time of the sale a fee simple title and there being no default on the part of the purchaser, the loss in equity, as upon a bill for specific performance, will fall upon the purchaser, he being regarded as the real owner. All of the decisions agree that the loss should be borne by the owner, but there is some diversity of opinion upon the question as to which party, vendor or purchaser, is to be regarded as the owner. The cases supporting the majority rule are based upon the theory that equity regards that as done which ought to be done, and that, when a valid and enforceable contract for the sale .of land has been made, equity will regard the vendor as holding the title for the benefit of the purchaser, and the purchaser as holding the unpaid purchase money for the benefit of the vendor, and that, therefore, the purchaser must be regarded in equity as the real owner.
The leading case in. which the rule is announced is Paine v. Meller, 6 Ves. Jr. (Eng.) *349, and this rule has been followed by many state decisions in this country, among them the following: Marks v. Tichenor, 85 Ky. 536; Skinner & Sons Co. v. Houghton, 92 Md. 68; Thompson v. Norton, 14 Ind. 187; Lombard v. Chicago Sinai Congregation, 64 Ill. 477; Manning v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 123 Mo. App. 456; Marion v. Wolcott, 68 N. J. Eq. 20; Sutton v. Davis, 143 N. Car. 474; Dunn *313v. Yakish, 10 Okla. 388; Woodward v. McCollum, 16 N. Dak. 42; Reed v. Lukens, 44 Pa. St. 200; Wetzler v. Duffy, 78 Wis. 170; Brewer v. Herbert, 30 Md. 301; Sewell v. Underhill, 197 N. Y. 168, also, note under Sewell v. Underhill, 27 L. R. A. n. s. 233; 39 Cyc. 1641; 27 R. C. L. 555, sec. 293.
In Lombard v. Chicago Sinai Congregation, supra, the court pointed out that there is a difference in the rights and relations of the parties in the ordinary case of an executory contract for the sale of land at law and in equity, and it was held that in law the contract conferred upon the vendee a mere right of action, the estate remaining in the vendor and the unpaid purchase money re-' maining that of the vendee. In equity, however, the estate from the making of the contract is regarded as the real property of the vendee, attended by most of .the incidents of ownership, and the purchase money as that of the vendor. Whether there is a sound distinction to be drawn between the rights of the parties in law or in equity, it is not necessary to determine, but it is proper to note that in some of the decisions in which the minority rule is announced the actions were at law.
The rule above announced is not applicable unless there is an ability, as well as a willingness, on the part of the vendor to convey, and it has been held that where the vendor is in a position where he cannot make title according to the contract, and the property is damaged, the loss will fall upon the vendor. The case of Kinney v. Hickox, 24 Neb. 167, cited by the appellant, falls within the exception to the rule. In that case at the time of the loss the vendor was not in a position to convey good title. There were certain liens upon the premises which he could or would not remove, among them being taxes, a judgment, and a mechanic’s lien. Other cases cited by appellant were either law actions, or within the minority rule.
No claim is made by the defendant that there was an improper application of the money collected on the insurance policy, and that question will not be discussed *314further than to say that, under the circumstances established, it would seem that the trial court was correct in abating the contract purchase price to the extent of the insurance money collected.
The decree of the district court is right, and the judgment is
Affirmed.