Chatalian v. Di Fusco
Vahan Chatalian & another v. Alessandra Di Fusco
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Braley, J.
The agreement of sale, executed April 23, 1920, provides “that the deed shall pass within sixty days from this date and that all rents, the taxes of the year 1920 and insurance shall be apportioned at the date of the delivery of the deed.” The termination of the time within which the conveyance must be made or tendered was therefore fixed as June 23, 1920. The present action is at law and the time of performance is of the essence of the contract. Lowe v. Harwood, 139 Mass. 133 . Mansfield v. Wiles, 221 Mass. 75, 81 . The plaintiffs made the initial payment of $300 called for by the agreement, and the jury would have been warranted in finding that during the sixty days they were willing and financially able to perform their part of the contract, and endeavored on several occasions to obtain the conveyance. But the defendant before the time had expired failed to deliver or tender a deed, which failure under the circumstances shown by the record could be found to be a refusal of performance which has not been waived. Gormley v. Kyle, 137 Mass. 189 . The plaintiffs accordingly had a right to rescind, and can recover back their payment as money had and received to their use. Burk v. Schreiber, 183 Mass. 35 . Lowe v. Harwood, 139 Mass. 133 . The motion for a directed verdict was denied rightly and the exceptions must be overruled.
So ordered.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(ticker tape provider not in privity with Dow Jones)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.