Sperry v. Tammany

WILSON, J.

This action involves the determination of the respective interests of decedent and defendant Prank H. Tammany in cash and personal effects. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant and plaintiff has appealed.

1. Plaintiff assigns error in the determination of the court that a certain automobile was held in joint tenancy by decedent and defendant and in awarding the car to defendant. The automobile was first registered in Louisiana to “Lieutenant Commander Prank H. Tammany and/or Jean S. Tammany.” After defendant was transferred to the Los Angeles area it was registered in California in the same manner. . The term “and/or” in this case is ambiguous and uncertain.

(In re Bell,

19 Cal.2d 488, 500 [122 P.2d 22].) Evidence was offered by defendant for the purpose of explaining the ambiguity, which was admitted over plaintiff’s objection. He testified the car was originally caused to be registered by decedent and defendant in the manner described after discussion of the subject. It was his intent “to establish a situation under which the car could be disposed of by Mrs. Tammany in my absence or in the event of my death without complicated legal action of any kind.” He stated he did not cause the car to be registered in California but his wife did so while he was absent. This evidence, which was not contradicted, shows that decedent acquiesced in the manner in which the car was registered in Louisiana and her assent is confirmed by her action in registering it in the same manner in California. . Plaintiff contends that such evidence is inadmissible.

Section 1636 of the Civil Code reads: “A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. ’ ’

For

the purpose of enabling the court to interpret the words of an instrument, which on its face is ambiguous, evidence of "the

[697]

intent of the parties is admissible to explain the document.

(Berry