Legal Opinion · Dissent

Leigh v. Hertzmark

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1967No. 8129Published

1DissentMoise, Justice

I find myself unable to agree with the opinion in this case.

There can be no question that when appellant sold and appellee purchased the lots in- question, the binder provided for assumption by appellee of “water and sewer assessments at not more than $216.84 per lot.” The- printed portion of the binder stated that the sellers should furnish an abstract of title or title insurance “showing merchantable title clear of liens and assessments except as set out herein. * * * ” The contract signed by the parties failed to mention the limit on the amount of water and sewer assessments to be assumed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. City of Clovis v. CrainNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1960
  2. City of Roswell v. BatemanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Perkinpine v. HoganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  4. City of De Pere v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  5. District Title Ins. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1948

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API