People v. Gallinger

California Court of Appeal Feb 13, 1940 No. Civ. 11324Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a holder of a leasehold interest in land who executes assignments of that interest is a "subdivider" subject to the notification and regulatory requirements of the Real Estate Act.

Issues

Whether a leasehold interest constitutes "land" under the Real Estate Act for purposes of defining a "subdivider."
Whether the regulatory burdens imposed by the Real Estate Act on small-scale transactions are unconstitutional or prohibitory.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That the defendant was the owner of a leasehold interest in the lands described in the pleadings, is not a disputed fact; and, under well-settled rules, it is approved usage of the language to speak of a leasehold interest in real estate as “land””

“when defendant commenced to execute assignments to the 40-acre tract he was a “subdivider”.”

STURTEVANT, J.

This is an action brought in the name of the plaintiff by J. Mortimer Clark as real estate commissioner of the State of California to obtain an injunction pro

[262]

kibiting the defendant from violating the provisions of sections 20a et seq. of the Real Estate Act of said estate. (Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 112.) After the trial was had an injunction issued as prayed. The defendant has appealed from the judgment. The case rests on similar facts and involves the construction of the same statute that was involved in

Cowell

Clark,

Civil No. 11323

(ante,

p. 255 [99 Pac. (2d) 594]), this day filed. All parties entered into a stipulation that the court might make an order consolidating said actions for hearing on appeal and that the issues are substantially the same. The court made an order in accord therewith. There is one point made in the present ease that was not made in the Cowell case which requires discussion.

Prom section 20a the defendant quotes: “Prior to the time when subdivided lands shall be offered for sale or lease, the owner, his agent or sub divider shall notify the Real Estate Commissioner in writing of his intention to sell such offering.” He then asserts that under the facts the State of New Mexico was the owner, and that the State of New Mexico has in no manner attempted to violate the statute. That contention was altogether sound before the defendant was granted a lease. However, the defendant fails to give effect to all of the facts. When the State of New Mexico executed to the defendant a lease, he brought it into the State of California, and proceeded to perform the acts charged in the complaint. The gravamen of the action extends to the acts of the defendant and not to the acts of the State of New Mexico. That the defendant was the owner of a leasehold interest in the lands described in the pleadings, is not a disputed fact; and, under well-settled rules, it is approved usage of the language to speak of a leasehold interest in real estate as “land”

People v. Gallinger

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief