Legal Opinion
Kleeb v. McInturff
Washington Supreme Court
Decided December 27, 1912No. 10471PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the superior court for Franklin county, Holcomb, J., entered' January 4, 1912, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the defendants on a counterclaim, in an action for specific performance.
1Opinion of the CourtCrow, J.
This action, brought to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, has heretofore been in this court (Kleeb v. McInturff, 62 Wash. 508, 114 Pac. 184, 116 Pac. 627), and a statement of the issues may be found in our former opinion. We then said:
*420“The defendants did not offer to rescind upon discovering that the horse was not a registered one, but seek to retain the horse and recover damages. We think they may rightfully do this, and that their measure of damages is the difference between $1,500, which they paid for the horse, and the actual value of the horse at the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Spoar v. Turn-VereinWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Kleeb v. McInturffWashington Supreme Court · 1911
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mono Service Co. v. KurtzWashington Supreme Court · 1932