Court Opinion

ID: 9703962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:15:32.267678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:53.588953
License: Public Domain

WINANS, Justice
(dissenting).
I would reverse the holding of the trial court outright. Consequently I would not reach the question of the compulsory counterclaim.
The holding of the trial court is wrong because:
1. Plaintiff delivered the warranty deed to her agent and attorney and did not attempt to recall, until after completion of abstract and receipt of full payment by her.
2. She made no attempt to return the down payment.
3. Defendant had a right to expect good title (no contention is made to the contrary)' and Plaintiff was having the abstract brought “down to date” to show her title. This time period ought not be chargeable to Defendant.
4. Plaintiff knew Defendant was going to want more time than the 30 days._“I am sure Mr. Skoglund is going to want more time”. With this knowledge on her part she did nothing to protect herself by word, act or deed until completion of the transfer.
I am not concerned that on appeal Defendant concedes that the finding that Mr. Cameron had no authority to deliver the warranty deed in August of 1968 is probably not clearly erroneous. It is clearly erroneous for the reasons I have given.
*485And again, though I would not reach the question of the compulsory counterclaim, I believe the law is contrary to the opinion of the majority. I think it was a compulsory counterclaim .