View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 22 Ill.42 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1930)
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs sought to rescind an executory contract for the purchase of land, alleging that the Defendant could not deliver marketable title. Facts.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The well-settled rule in California is that there can be no rescission by a vendee of an executory contract for sale merely because of lack of title in the vendor prior to the date when performance is due.
Plaintiffs sought to rescind an executory contract for the purchase of land, alleging that the Defendant could not deliver marketable title, insofar as the land in question may not have been owned by Defendant. The land was the subject of a Department of Interior matter, which turned on resolving whether homestead claims are to be upheld adverse to Defendant’s ownership. The Plaintiffs stated that when they discovered the homestead claims they demanded that Defendant exhibit its title and offered to pay the full amount due under the contract, but that Defendant refused and refused to refund monies paid by Plaintiffs under the contract. The Plaintiffs sued for an injunction restraining Defendant from canceling the contract, forfeiting Plaintiffs’ rights, relieving Plaintiffs from making any further payments under the contract until the Department of Interior makes its ruling and, in the alternative, that the contract be rescinded and that Plaintiffs be awarded all monies paid t
o date. Issue.
Does the complaint state grounds for rescinding the contract?