Lechner v. Halling
Washington Supreme Court
216 P.2d 179 (1950)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Leslie Lechner (plaintiff) hired C.A. Donahue of Donahue Realty Company to assist in selling his real estate. Lawrence Halling (defendant) agreed to purchase the property and paid escrow money to Donahue for the purchase. Lechner gave a warranty deed to the property to Donahue to be held in escrow. Upon taking possession of the property, Halling wrote a letter release, authorizing Donahue to pay the purchase price from the escrow account to Donahue. Donahue delivered the deed to Halling and informed Halling that he needed to record the deed. Halling asked Donahue to record the deed, which she agreed to do on his behalf. However, before Donahue made full payment to Lechner from the escrow account, Donahue lost her realtor license and was later convicted of embezzlement, including embezzlement of funds related to the Lechner sale. The warranty deed to the property and any purchase money recovered went into receivership. Lechner brought suit against Halling seeking payment of the full purchase price from Halling, or alternatively a return of the property. The trial court ruled in favor of Halling, ordering that the warranty deed be given to Halling and that Lechner must seek his money through the receivership proceeding. Lechner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Robinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.