Schweiter v. Halsey
Washington Supreme Court
359 P.2d 821 (1961)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Halseys (defendants) put their farm on the market. The Schweiters (plaintiffs) wished to buy only the tillable portion of the farm. The Halseys agreed but had a legal description only of the entire farm; they did not have a legal description of solely the tillable portion. As a result, the Halseys and Schweiters signed an earnest-money agreement without a description of the exact property being sold. Several weeks later, the Halseys conducted a survey and attached a legal description of the land being sold to the agreement. J.E. Schweiter’s wife refused to sign the closing documents. Consequently, the Schweiters gave notice of their rescission of the agreement. The Halseys at all times were ready, willing, and able to perform. The Schweiters brought suit seeking a return of their $5,000 earnest money. The trial court ruled in favor of the Schweiters and ordered a return of the earnest money. The Halseys appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Donworth, J.)
Dissent (Finley, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.