Donelson Caffrey Glassie v. Pauline M. King

D.C. Circuit

Donelson Caffrey Glassie v. Pauline M. King

360 F.2d 503, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 369

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 1965

Docket19495

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 360 F.2d 503 (Donelson Caffrey Glassie v. Pauline M. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donelson Caffrey Glassie v. Pauline M. King, 360 F.2d 503, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 369 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case concerns the disposition of a cash deposit posted by prospective purchasers to insure the performance of a contract for the sale of realty. The contract recited that it was subject to the purchasers’ being able to obtain a first deed of trust of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars, with an interest rate of 6 per cent, within thirty days of ratification of the contract. The contract was not consummated, and a civil action was instituted to recover the deposit. After trial, the District Court found that the defendants had not exerted reasonable efforts under all the circumstances to secure a first trust loan of $150,000. Upon that basis the court ordered that the deposit be turned over to the proposed sellers. We think the finding is not clearly erroneous and the conclusion based thereon is reasonable.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This case concerns the disposition of a cash deposit posted by prospective purchasers to insure the performance of a contract for the sale of realty. The contract recited that it was subject to the purchasers’ being able to obtain a first deed of trust of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars, with an interest rate of 6 per cent, within thirty days of ratification of the contract. The contract was not consummated, and a civil action was instituted to recover the deposit. After trial, the District Court found that the defendants had not exerted reasonable efforts under all the circumstances to secure a first trust loan of $150,000. Upon that basis the court ordered that the deposit be turned over to the proposed sellers. We think the finding is not clearly erroneous and the conclusion based thereon is reasonable.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F.2d 503, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donelson-caffrey-glassie-v-pauline-m-king-cadc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack