Court Opinion

ID: 9543079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:41:51.26571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:38.223363
License: Public Domain

Badt and Eather, Justices
(concurring specially).
We concur in the order of reversal and remand for new trial, limited to the issue of damages. The trial *372court found in effect that there had been a concealment by the Quilicis of the fact of Mrs. Scossa’s interest in the real estate (the record does not disclose that she owned any interest in the personalty) but that such concealment was not with fraudulent intent, and based its judgment for the defendants upon the one ground of impossibility of performance of■ the contract. That there had been no reasonable and good faith efforts to perform on the part of the defendants is clear from the analysis in the foregoing opinion, of the proceedings had in the guardianship court (insofar as the real estate is concerned) and from a consideration of the applicable provisions of the code governing proceedings in the matter of guardians’ sales. Our concurrence therefore is upon the sole ground that the court’s sustaining of the defense of impossibility of performance was error.
July 25, 1950.