Samuel Schwartz v. William Robinowitz

D.C. Circuit

Samuel Schwartz v. William Robinowitz

223 F.2d 622, 96 U.S. App. D.C. 157, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3995

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1955

Docket12303_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 F.2d 622 (Samuel Schwartz v. William Robinowitz) 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

Samuel Schwartz v. William Robinowitz, 223 F.2d 622, 96 U.S. App. D.C. 157, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3995 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Only the sellers, in the written real' estate contract involved here, fully performed on the agreed settlement date. Several days thereafter and before the buyer tendered performance, the sellers *623 declared the sale off and claimed an amount under the forfeiture provision of the contract. The buyer brought this suit for specific performance and the sellers counterclaimed under the forfeiture provision. Upon trial without jury, the court found, inter alia, that the sellers “did not agree to any extension of time for * * * concluding the settlement * * The complaint was dismissed and judgment awarded on the counterclaim. The buyer appeals.

The legal issues were correctly decided on the basis of findings amply supported by the evidence. We do not consider whether the court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the custom and usage in the business of real estate title settlement companies. For even if such refusal was error, it was not prejudicial in the circumstances of this case.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Only the sellers, in the written real' estate contract involved here, fully performed on the agreed settlement date. Several days thereafter and before the buyer tendered performance, the sellers *623 declared the sale off and claimed an amount under the forfeiture provision of the contract. The buyer brought this suit for specific performance and the sellers counterclaimed under the forfeiture provision. Upon trial without jury, the court found, inter alia, that the sellers “did not agree to any extension of time for * * * concluding the settlement * * The complaint was dismissed and judgment awarded on the counterclaim. The buyer appeals.

The legal issues were correctly decided on the basis of findings amply supported by the evidence. We do not consider whether the court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the custom and usage in the business of real estate title settlement companies. For even if such refusal was error, it was not prejudicial in the circumstances of this case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 F.2d 622, 96 U.S. App. D.C. 157, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-schwartz-v-william-robinowitz-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack