Legal Opinion

Murray v. Himelfarb

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 18, 1959No. 2398PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HOOD, Associate Judge.

This case was tried on the following stipulated facts. On December 31, 1953, Mr. and Mrs. Himelfarb, 1 hereafter called the sellers, entered into a contract to sell to Murray, hereafter called the purchaser, certain land in the District of Columbia for a price of $240,000. The contract provided that the property “is sold free of encumbrance * * *; title is to be good of record and in fact”; and the contract called for settlement within sixty days or as soon thereafter as report on title could be secured.

Prior to the making of the contract the District of Columbia had…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gotthelf v. . StranahanNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Cornelius v. KrommingaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
  3. Tomes v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  4. Machen v. YostCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1924

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Building Services Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API