Caveny v. Asheim
Oregon Supreme Court
202 Or. 195 (1953)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Ednamae and Kasper Caveny (plaintiffs) purchased real property from Gable Park, Inc. (defendant). The Cavenys agreed to pay $28,500 for the property, and Gable Park agreed to complete specific work on the property and to convey marketable title, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Under the contract, the final $1,000 of the purchase price was not due until completion of all of Gable Park’s obligations. Gable Park failed to pay off a prior mortgage to Travelers Insurance Company, which meant that Gable Park failed to deliver title free of all liens and encumbrances. The Cavenys refused to pay the final $1,000 of the purchase price and sued Gable Park, seeking specific enforcement. The trial court ruled in favor of the Cavenys and entered an injunction requiring Gable Park to convey the property with a clear title. The trial court also ordered the Cavenys to pay the final portion of the purchase price to the court clerk, who would transfer the payment to Gable Park after receiving proof that the Travelers Insurance mortgage had been paid. Later, the trial court modified the injunction to create a trust for $11,856.04, which was the money that had been paid by the Cavenys to Gable Park that should have been paid to Travelers to release the old mortgage. Gable Park was named as the trustee, and the trial court entered a judgment for the amount of the trust. Gable Park appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.