Goodman v. Grimmer

New Mexico Supreme Court

Goodman v. Grimmer

277 P. 433, 34 N.M. 111

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1929

DocketNo. 3325.

StatusPublished

This text of 277 P. 433 (Goodman v. Grimmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodman v. Grimmer, 277 P. 433, 34 N.M. 111 (N.M. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PARKER, J.

This is a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real estate. The defendants pleaded the statute of frauds. The plaintiff was in possession of the premises under a lease which contained the following provision:

“It is further understood and agreed that in the event said party of the first part shall desire to sell the said property described herein, said party of the second part shall have the first right and option to buy and púrchase the said real estate at a price agreed upon between the parties hereto.”

The court found that in the latter part of 1926 the appellee Grimmer asked appellant if he desired to buy, .but that he declined, saying he had no-money. Appellee Grimmer, on February 18, 1927, sold the premises to appellee Love, after which time appellant paid the rent to Love and stated to- Love that he would as leave pay it to him as to Grimmer. He also found that appellant •disclaimed any interest in the purchase before the sale and apparently acquiesced in it afterwards. These findings are supported by substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed by this court. These facts amount to a waiver of appellant’s rights under the covenant above set out. If, when he had notice and opportunity to exercise the option, the appellant declined to do so, it would seem to be but common justice to now refuse the right.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court below is correct, and should be affirmed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

BICKLEY, C. J., and WATSON, J., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PARKER, J.

This is a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real estate. The defendants pleaded the statute of frauds. The plaintiff was in possession of the premises under a lease which contained the following provision:

“It is further understood and agreed that in the event said party of the first part shall desire to sell the said property described herein, said party of the second part shall have the first right and option to buy and púrchase the said real estate at a price agreed upon between the parties hereto.”

The court found that in the latter part of 1926 the appellee Grimmer asked appellant if he desired to buy, .but that he declined, saying he had no-money. Appellee Grimmer, on February 18, 1927, sold the premises to appellee Love, after which time appellant paid the rent to Love and stated to- Love that he would as leave pay it to him as to Grimmer. He also found that appellant •disclaimed any interest in the purchase before the sale and apparently acquiesced in it afterwards. These findings are supported by substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed by this court. These facts amount to a waiver of appellant’s rights under the covenant above set out. If, when he had notice and opportunity to exercise the option, the appellant declined to do so, it would seem to be but common justice to now refuse the right.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court below is correct, and should be affirmed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

BICKLEY, C. J., and WATSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 P. 433, 34 N.M. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-grimmer-nm-1929.