Legal Opinion

Douglass v. Ransom

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The principal contention of the defendant here is that if the plaintiff found the title unsatisfactory he could do one of three things:

“(a) Elect to perform the contract arid take a conveyance relying on the covenant in the deed as security against any defects in the title.
“(b) Elect to refuse to perform the contract and receive back the earnest money.
“(c) Elect to have an amount abated from the purchase price for the deficiency of title.”

The principal argument of the defendant is directed to the proposition that a court of equity will not require a de*447fendant to furnish a marketable title…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Williams v. City of OconomowocWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Zuelke v. GergoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Anderson v. OnsagerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API