Court Opinion

ID: 9719709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:00:55.826504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.346502
License: Public Domain

Matson, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Knutson. Prior to the exercise of its option to purchase in the year 1957, Chun King had neither legal nor equitable title to the property. It should not be overlooked that an option to purchase embodied in a lease is nothing more than an irrevocable and continuing offer to sell and conveys no interest in the land of the optionee but vests in him only a right in personam to buy at his election. Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo, 222 Minn. 141, 23 N. W. (2d) 362, 166 A. L. R. 435.