Allen v. Cross

California Court of Appeal Mar 7, 1924 No. Civ. No. 4185.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an otherwise indefinite oral contract for services is enforceable when the parties' subsequent conduct and performance clarify the uncertain terms.

Issues

Whether the oral contract was too indefinite and uncertain to be enforceable.
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's findings and judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That is certain which can be made certain.”

“It thus appears that that which was uncertain in the contract in its inception was made clear and intelligible by the acts of the parties thereto.”

“Although the exact consideration to be paid for the services of plaintiff is wanting in the language of the contract, the defect was cured by the parties thereafter, expressed by their conduct.”

HOUSER, J.

Plaintiff brought an action for damages against defendant as executor of the last will of B. F. Childs, deceased, based upon the failure of said Childs to comply with the terms of an alleged oral contract by which it was agreed that if plaintiff would give up her home in the state of Kansas and come to California with the said Childs and there continue to serve him as she had done in the state of Kansas in the capacity of housekeeper, cook, companion, and nurse so long as he lived, he would buy for plaintiff a home better than “Maple Crest” (which was the name of the home of said Childs in the state of Kansas), and that he would also see that plaintiff would be comfortable the rest of her life and would afford her an opportunity to educate her young daughter.

Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The points presented by appellant are: That the alleged contract was too indefinite and uncertain to admit of enforcement; that the findings of the court, the conclusions

[132]

of law, and the judgment therein are not supported by" the evidence.

The findings of the court were to the effect that the alleged contract was actually made by the parties; that pursuant thereto plaintiff performed her part of the agreement; that in-accordance with said agreement and as a part thereof said Childs purchased a home for plaintiff in the city of San Diego, California, at an agreed price of $10,000 and caused the same to be conveyed to plaintiff; that said Childs paid in cash on said purchase the sum of $3,000, leaving a balance of $7,000 to be paid on or before five years, with seven per cent interest, in accordance with the terms of a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the premises executed by plaintiff at the request of said Childs; that Childs thereafter died without having paid said $7,000, the balance of the purchase money; that the plaintiff was obliged to and did pay interest on said indebtedness, amounting to the sum of $490; and that she duly presented her claim for the sum of $7,490 against the estate of said Childs, which claim was by the defendant herein, as said executor, rejected. As conclusions of law the court found that plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $7,490 from defendant, and judgment was ordered accordingly.

Allen v. Cross

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief