Smith v. Mendonsa

California Court of Appeal Jan 4, 1952 No. Civ. 8027Published

Before: Van Dyke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a judgment awarding damages for breach of a property agreement and granting an injunction to enforce the agreement's height restrictions on trees, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in enforcing the clear terms of the contract.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the award of damages for breach of a property agreement.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief to enforce specific height restrictions on trees despite claims of hardship.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The case comes within the rule stated in 25 Corpus Juris Secundum, “Damages,” page 815, that when it clearly appears that a party has suffered damage a liberal rule should be applied in allowing a court or jury to determine the amount”

“It is not the -business of courts, either of law or of equity, to remake contracts fairly entered into by persons who are capable of contracting.”

“We think that the trial court acted within its discretion in granting injunctive relief.”

[542]

VAN DYKE, J.

On May 1, 1947, plaintiff and respondent, as promisee, entered into an agreement with defendants and appellants, as promisors, concerning the use of certain real property which had been conveyed by respondent to appellants. Therein they agreed that in the use of their property they would permit no trees to remain thereon which exceeded a height of 15 feet; that should any tree attain a greater height respondent would have the right to remove the same. It was stated that the purpose of the agreement was to prevent the improper shading of respondent’s contiguous land and to prevent trees on the appellants’ property from overhanging it. It appeared that respondent was, when the agreement was made, and ever since had been devoting his property to orchard purposes. Appellants on their land have been conducting a gas station, a restaurant and a bar. The trial court rendered judgment awarding respondent damages for past violations of the agreement in the sum of $425 and perpetually enjoining the appellants from maintaining upon their property any tree in excess of the stipulated height and from permitting branches of any tree to overhang the land of respondent. Prom this judgment this appeal is taken.

Appellants contend that the proof of damage was insufficient to support the award and that the injunction issued was too severe and should be either set aside or modified.

We are not here concerned with whether or not the promise sued upon constitutes under our code a covenant running with the land of either the promisor or the promisee, since we are here dealing with the original parties to the agreement; and it is not contended that the written agreement in question is in anywise invalid.

Turning first to the contention that the damages are not based upon supporting evidence, but on the contrary are the result of conjecture, the record discloses testimony that the shading of the orchard trees near the appellants’ property line was detrimental to the growth of the trees themselves and further would, during some seasons at least, lower the production of fruit upon the affected trees; that there were some 48 orchard trees so affected, amounting to better than half an acre of planting; that these trees had been retarded as to growth and their production lessened. Referring to such cases as

Smith v. Mendonsa

AI Brief

VAN DYKE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief