Lexplug logoLexplug

Kimball v. West

Supreme Court of the United States
21 L. Ed. 95, 82 U.S. 377, 15 Wall. 377 (1872)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A buyer of real property cannot obtain the equitable remedy of rescission due to a title defect if the seller cures the defect before the court's final decree and the buyer has not suffered any actual damages from the delay.


Facts:

  • The plaintiffs purchased property from the defendant.
  • The plaintiffs paid the defendant an agreed-upon sum for the property.
  • The defendant provided the plaintiffs with a deed that included a warranty of title.
  • It was later discovered that there was a defect in the title the defendant had conveyed.
  • The defendant, at his own cost, subsequently cured the defect and secured good title for the plaintiffs before the court's final hearing.
  • The plaintiffs did not suffer any loss, injury, or damage as a result of the temporary title defect or the delay in curing it.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiffs filed a suit in a court of equity (the trial court) against the defendant, seeking to rescind the real estate contract.
  • The trial court entered a decree against the plaintiffs, denying their request for rescission.
  • The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's decree to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a defect in a real estate title that is cured by the seller before a final court decree, without any resulting harm to the buyer, justify the equitable remedy of rescission of the contract?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Miller

No. A defect in a real estate title that is cured by the seller before a final court decree, without any resulting harm to the buyer, does not justify the equitable remedy of rescission. The plaintiffs' proper remedy for a defect in title is an action for damages on the warranty covenant, not a suit in equity to rescind the entire contract. Rescission is an extraordinary remedy that will only be granted when clearly necessary for justice. Since the defendant was able to, and did, cure the title defect at his own cost before the hearing, making the plaintiffs whole, rescission is inappropriate, especially as the plaintiffs failed to show any loss or damage from the delay. Even if some minor damage had occurred, monetary compensation would be the preferred remedy over unwinding the entire sale.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that rescission is an extraordinary equitable remedy, not to be granted lightly. It establishes that if a contractual breach, such as a curable title defect, can be remedied by the breaching party before final judgment, and the non-breaching party can be made whole, courts will favor preserving the contract over rescinding it. This promotes the stability of real estate transactions and directs parties toward legal remedies like damages for actual harm, rather than allowing them to escape a bargain for a technical defect that has since been fixed.

đŸ¤– Gunnerbot:
Query Kimball v. West (1872) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Kimball v. West