To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Sanford v. Breidenbach

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 22 Ill.111 Ohio App. 474, 173 N.E.2d 702 (Ct. App. 1960)

Brief Fact Summary. Sanford agreed to sell land and a house to Breidenbach, but prior to the consummation of the transfer of legal title, the house was destroyed by fire.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The risk of loss should be on the vendor until the time agreed upon for conveyance of the legal title, and thereafter on the purchaser, unless the vendor is then in such default as to be unable specifically to enforce the contract. [4 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (5 Ed.), Section 1161a].

Facts. Sanford agreed to sell to Breidenbach a parcel of property along with a home situated thereupon for $26,000. Possession of the property, according to the contract, was to pass when title was transferred. Breidenbach did receive two keys to the house and entered inside to check the heating oil situation. The back of the contract provided that Sanford would provide a septic system easement agreement prior to the transfer of title. While the papers necessary to the transfer were being prepared, the house was destroyed by fire. Breidenbach instructed his bank, which was to loan him the purchase money, not to file the deed of record, which had been placed in escrow with the bank. When Breidenbach executed the contract for purchase, he also secured from Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company a policy of insurance of $22,000 to cover him in the event that the property was destroyed by fire. Sanford had maintained insurance on the property in the sum of $20,000. The policy was cancelle
d without permission from Sanford by the agent of the insurance company. The court found the unilateral cancellation to be ineffective, and that the policy was in full force and effect at the time of the loss. Sanford sued Breidenbach and Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company seeking specific performance of the contract to purchase the lands. Breidenbach cross-petitioned and brought Insurance Company of North America (Sanford’s insurer) into the case. $12,000 had been deposited by Breidenbach into escrow pending the delivery of title. The lower court found that Sanford was not entitled to specific performance, but that Sanford should recover a portion of each insurance policy.

Issue. Two issues are presented:
Is Sanford entitled to specific performance?
Was Breidenbach, under equitable conversion, the owner of the premises at the time of the fire?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following