Moore v. Giesecke
76 Tex. 543, 13 S.W. 290, 1890 Tex. LEXIS 1307 (1890)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vendor in an executory land sale contract who is in default for failing to perform a condition precedent, such as delivering a deed, cannot obtain a rescission of the contract without accounting for the vendee's equities, including partial payments and valuable improvements.
Facts:
- F. Geisecke and J. A. Moore entered into a written contract for the sale of two tracts of land for $1500.
- The contract required an initial $100 cash payment from Moore, followed by seven annual payments of $200 each.
- The agreement stipulated that Geisecke would provide Moore with a warranty deed to the land "as soon as it is surveyed."
- Moore took possession of the land around January 1883.
- Over the subsequent years, Moore made several partial payments toward the purchase price, totaling $374.30.
- While in possession, Moore made permanent and valuable improvements to the land, which he claimed enhanced its value by $1000.
- Geisecke had the land surveyed but never delivered the promised warranty deed to Moore.
Procedural Posture:
- F. Geisecke (plaintiff) sued J. A. Moore (defendant) in a Texas trial court, seeking to rescind a land sale contract.
- Moore filed an exception to Geisecke's petition and an answer asserting his right to compensation for payments and improvements.
- Geisecke filed an exception to Moore's equitable defenses.
- The trial court overruled Moore's exception, sustained Geisecke's exception, and entered a judgment allowing Geisecke to recover the land.
- Moore (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the higher court.
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 vendor in an executory land sale contract, who has defaulted on his own obligation to deliver a deed, have the right to rescind the contract and recover the land without compensating the vendee for partial payments and valuable improvements?
Opinions:
Majority - Henry, Associate Justice
No. A vendor who is in default by his failure to deliver a deed according to the terms of the contract is not in a position to enforce a rescission without regard to the equities his vendee might have. The court reasoned that the contract was executory, and Geisecke's primary obligation after the survey was to provide a deed, which he failed to do. This default prevents him from demanding rescission without considering Moore's equitable interests, such as the partial purchase money paid and the value of permanent improvements. The court emphasized that the remedy of rescission is harsh and disfavored, and a vendor's actions, like accepting late payments over a long period, can be seen as a waiver of the right to strictly enforce the contract. When a vendor seeks to recover the land, a court of equity must consider the circumstances and may require the vendor to compensate the vendee to avoid an unjust result, or may deny rescission altogether if the vendee tenders full performance.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that rescission of an executory land contract is an equitable remedy, not an absolute right. It establishes that a vendor's own default or conduct waiving strict performance can prevent them from obtaining rescission, or at least require them to 'do equity' by compensating the vendee for their investments. The case moves away from a rigid, form-based analysis of the lawsuit (e.g., rescission vs. trespass to try title) and toward a substantive inquiry into the fairness of the outcome. This precedent protects vendees from the complete forfeiture of their partial payments and improvements when a vendor seeks to reclaim property, ensuring that courts balance the equities of both parties.
