Conklin v. Davi

The Conklins (plaintiffs) contracted to sell property to the Davis (defendants) under a contract requiring marketable and insurable title, but not a perfected record title; the Davis refused to close after discovering the Conklins' claim of title rested on adverse possession rather than a clean record title. The Conklins sued for specific performance (later abandoned), and the Davis counterclaimed for rescission; the trial court ruled for the Davis, the intermediate appellate court reversed for the Conklins, and the Davis appealed to the state supreme court.