Miller v. Craig
Arizona Court of Appeals
558 P.2d 984 (1976)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Spouses George W. and Johanna Miller (plaintiffs) and Mary E. Crouse signed a contract for the sale and purchase of the Millers' tavern. The contract named Harry E. Craig (defendant) as the parties' closing lawyer and escrow agent, and absolved Craig of legal liability for any related action performed with "reasonable prudence." Pursuant to the contract, Crouse deposited $5,000 with Craig, to be held as earnest money and disbursed either as part of Crouse's purchase funds at closing, or as liquidated damages should Crouse default on the contract. Crouse later took the Millers to court over some of the contract's provisions. The trial court ordered the Millers to pay Crouse damages in the amount of Crouse's earnest-money deposit. Crouse presented the court's order to Craig who, without consulting the Millers, returned Crouse's deposit. The Millers successfully appealed the court's judgment, and sued Craig for the sum he turned over to Crouse. The trial court granted summary judgment for Craig, and the Millers appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,600 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
