This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Halsey (D) and his wife owned a farm subject to a mortgage. They listed the land for sale with real estate brokers. The brokers showed the property to Schweiter (P) who only wanted to purchase the tillable land. D was agreeable to selling that portion of the land but had no legal description for it. The brokers informed P that the mortgagee was willing to increase the amount of the mortgage to $50,000 at 6%. On October 23, 1956, an earnest money receipt was executed, but there was no legal description of the property attached to the receipt. Several weeks later a legal description of the tillable land was attached, and everyone was notified of that fact. P’s loan was approved, and D then asked that the closing be delayed until the New Year for tax reasons. P executed the deed, but D notified P that his wife refused to sign the papers. On January 11, 1957, P gave notice of rescission and D promptly tendered performance, which was refused by P. P then instituted this action for a declaration of rights under the earnest money agreement. Shortly thereafter, D sold the tillable land to a third party for $7,000 less than P had agreed to pay for it. D filed a cross-complaint to recover the $7,000 plus other special damages. The trial court held that the earnest agreement was void, as there was no legal description of the real estate involved in the transaction. P got the judgment for $5,000, and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.