McClintock v. Robinson

California Court of Appeal Jan 19, 1937 No. Civ. 1638Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was no contract of sale between the parties because there was no mutual assent, and therefore the trial court's finding that the plaintiff owned the cabin was unsupported by the evidence. Consequently, the judgment for malicious prosecution, which relied on the plaintiff's ownership of the property, could not be sustained.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the plaintiff purchased the cabin from the defendant.
Whether a contract of sale exists when an agent enters into a lease agreement contrary to the undisclosed principal's intent to purchase.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence of plaintiff on his direct examination that he personally purchased the cabin from defendant and personally paid him for it is so clearly incorrect that it cannot create a “substantial conflict in the evidence””

“When we apply these rules to the facts before us it is immediately apparent that one of the necessary elements of a valid contract is lacking. There was no mutual assent,— no meeting of the minds.”

[578]

MARKS, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. He was given judgment for $2,750 and costs, and defendant has appealed.

The action grew out of the prosecution of plaintiff for grand theft. On September 5, 1934, defendant verified a complaint in the Justice’s Court of Santa Ana Township charging McClintock with stealing a cabin of the value of $350. A warrant of arrest was issued and plaintiff was arrested in Los Angeles. He was taken to the county jail, where he remained for about eight hours before being released on bail. He was photographed and fingerprinted while in jail. At his preliminary examination he was held to answer. An information was filed against him and the case proceeded to trial. After two witnesses had been examined by the People the case was dismissed on motion of the district attorney. This action followed.

The trial court found that defendant instituted the criminal proceeding maliciously and falsely and without probable cause because he had sold the cabin to plaintiff, accepted payment for it, and knew that plaintiff claimed to be and was the owner of it. This particular finding and the conclusions of law based upon it are as follows:

“ The Court further finds from the evidence introduced in said action, that the plaintiff Earl McClintock purchased the cabin referred to in said criminal complaint, from the defendant Louis Robinson, through one I. P. Arnold, and that plaintiff at all times thereafter claimed to own said cabin, . . .

“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

“No. 1. As a conclusion of law from the above and foregoing facts, the Court finds that said Louis Robinson, defendant above named, did, without probable cause, and with malice, cause the said plaintiff Earl McClintock to be arrested and charged with the crime of a felony, to-wit: grand theft, knowing at the time that there did not exist any reasonable or probable cause to believe, and that said defendant Louis Robinson did not believe the said Earl McClintock guilty of said crime, and did not act in good faith, and with the honest belief that a crime, to-wit •. grand theft, had been committed, and that said plaintiff Earl McClintock committed said crime.

McClintock v. Robinson

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief