Kelsey v. San Fernando Development Co.

California Court of Appeal Jun 13, 1932 No. Docket No. 4564.Published

Before: Jamison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's finding that the bank stock was not accepted as payment for the lots was supported by substantial evidence and therefore binding, precluding the plaintiff's claim for specific performance due to lack of adequate consideration.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding that the bank stock was not accepted as payment for the lots is supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the doctrine of ratification applies when the underlying act of the agent was not performed as alleged.
Whether the plaintiff provided adequate consideration to entitle him to specific performance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court found that respondents did not accept the bank stock as a payment on the amount owing by appellant for the purchase price of the lots.”

“The evidence as to whether or not the bank stock was accepted as a payment is conflicting, but there is substantial evidence to support this finding of the trial court”

“Therefore, in this case the basic element of ratification is lacking and, consequently, ratification cannot be relied upon by appellant to sustain his action.”

JAMISON, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an action for specific performance of certain contracts for the sale of lots, which plaintiff alleges were sold to him by defendant, ■ California Trust Company, and the full purchase price paid. These

[280]

lots were a part of Tract No. 9555 situated in Los Angeles County and were owned by defendant Chase.

On October 5, 1926, Chase, by a certain trust agreement, conveyed said tract to the California Trust Company, as trustee, authorizing it to subdivide said tract into lots and to cause same to be sold by the San Fernando Valley Development Company acting as its agent, subject to the terms of the trust agreement and the approval of the trustee. The San Fernando Valley Development Company, as such sales agent, entered into an agreement with F. E. Lynch and Willard J. Lewis to sell the said lots subject to the terms of the trust agreement and the approval of the trustee. Thereafter Lewis and Lynch, through their agent, including one Broadhead, negotiated sales to plaintiff of lots 34, 35, 45, 107 and 108 in said tract of which the sales of lots 34, 107 and 108 were approved by the trustee, the California Trust Company, and contracts were executed by said trustee for the sale of said lots 34, 107 and 108 to plaintiff. Said Lewis and Lynch also negotiated the sales of lots 35 and 45 in said tract to plaintiff, but no contracts for these two lots were executed by the trustee. Upon each of these lots a cash payment was made, the remainder of the purchase price to be paid in installments. This action was dismissed as to defendants Lynch and Broadhead.

Judgment was rendered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial having been denied, he prosecutes this appeal. It is the contention of appellant that he has paid the purchase price of the said lots in full, and that he is therefore entitled to receive from respondents deeds for same. He bases this contention upon the following facts: That he had an arrangement with Broadhead, who was a sales agent for Lewis and Lynch, to pay up in full for all of said lots, which was to be done by the assignment of 50 shares of stock of the Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Blythe, California, of the par value of $100 per share, the assignment of a note and mortgage of a third party for $2,000 and

Kelsey v. San Fernando Development Co.

AI Brief

JAMISON, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief