Wray v. Chatterson
Before: Sloane
SLOANE, P. J.
This appeal, taken to the Second District Court of Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, has been transferred to this court
[292]
for decision, and is submitted, by stipulation of the parties, on the briefs on file.
The appeal is from a judgment for plaintiffs for the recovery from the defendant Southern California Investment Company the sum of $930.63 by way of contribution for appellant’s share of a liability claimed under joint and several obligation entered into by plaintiffs and defendant. Shortly prior to July 28, 1924, the plaintiffs and defendant were mutually engaged in subdividing and developing certain contiguous tracts of land in the city of Santa Ana, which they owned in severalty, and in order to secure certain street extensions deemed desirable for the subdivision, said plaintiffs and defendant, of date July 28, 1924, negotiated and executed with said M. Nisson and Charlotte L. Nisson, his wife, as parties of the first part, and Newton Wray and Isabel Wray, his wife, Walter Fine and Olive Fine, his wife, J. L. Stephenson and Ida E. Stephenson, his wife, and the Southern California Investment Company, a corporation, of which L. H. Chatterson is president, as party of the second part, a contract in writing, whereby the parties of the first part agreed to grant and convey the parcel of land heretofore referred to, for street extension purposes, for a consideration of $2,500, whereby, in consideration of the granting of the parcel of land referred to by said parties of the first part, the said parties of the second part jointly and severally agreed to pay to the parties of the first part on or before one year from the date of said agreement, the sum of $2,500, together with interest thereon, at the rate of seven per cent per annum, payable semiannually, as set forth in a certain promissory note executed as of even date therewith, and wherein it was further agreed by the parties of the second part, jointly and severally to cause to be paid all of the expenses of the paving and installing of curb and gutter upon the land so to be conveyed and used for said street extension, and to cause to be installed, prior to the paving of said portion of the street, and in the said portion thereof to be so paved, all sewer lines, ■ gas lines and water lines, with laterals, so that after the paving thereof the cutting of the pavement would not be necessary for said installation; and to pay, or cause to be paid, all of the expense of the installing of said lines, and that said parties of the first part should not be required
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)