McCracken v. Bay City Land Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Tillamook: George E. Bagley, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit to rescind a contract for the purchase of three lots in Central Addition to Bay City, the vendee being plaintiff, and the vendor defendant.
Read the full summary
From Tillamook: George E. Bagley, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit to rescind a contract for the purchase of three lots in Central Addition to Bay City, the vendee being plaintiff, and the vendor defendant. The contract, which is set ont in fnll in the complaint, provides for monthly payments, and inter1 alia, contains the following clause: “The first party agrees to cnt and grade the street at the present level in front of the said lots, and to lay a water main along the said street in front of the said lots, and to clear the said lots. All of these improvements to be delivered free and…
1Opinion of the CourtBenson, J.
There are two questions presented upon the appeal. The plaintiff bases his right of recovery, first, upon the theory that early in September he tendered the balance due upon his contract and demanded his deed, but that defendant replied that it would be unable to deliver the same, for the reason that it could not, prior to November 30th, secure a release of the land from the lien of a certain trust deed. The question raised upon this proposition is: Was there such a tender of payment of the purchase price as would put defendant in default by failure to make conveyance? •
1. The second…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Emigrant Co. v. County of AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Tipton v. . FeitnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Potter Realty Co. v. DerbyOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Front Street, Mission & Ocean Railroad v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Crampton v. McLaughlin Realty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Boyer v. Edgemont Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1931