Work v. Associated Almond Growers of Paso Robles

PULLEN, J., pro tem.

The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs who sued for a balance on the purchase price of real property. Negotiations were carried on in behalf of the parties to this appeal, which culminated in an option agreement, the portion which is essential to a determination of this appeal being as follows:

“Whereas, the sellers are owners of certain lands in San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties, California, containing approximately six thousand (6000) acres, more particularly described in parcels as follows:

“Parcel No. 1. All that portion of said tract of, 6000 acres of land lying south of the county road in sections 27, 33 and 34, and the land in San Luis Obispo county joining said section 33 on the south.

“Parcel No. 2. All of said tract of 6000 acres lying north of the south line of sections 15 and 16 in said township 24 south of range 13 east, M. D. M.

“Parcel No. 3. All that part of said tract of 6000 acres lying south of the north line of section twenty-nine, in township 24 south of range 13' east, M. D. M., and including all lands in township 25 south, in San Luis Obispo county, and that part of section thirty-three lying north of the county road running through said section thirty-three, excepting however all of section 34 embraced in the foregoing description!.

“Parcel No. 4. All that part of said tract of 6000- acres lying east of the north and south line between sections 21 and 22 and sections 27 and 28 in said township 24 south of range 13 east, M. D. M.

“Parcel No. 5. All that part of said tract of 6000 acres remaining after the selection of the foregoing described parcels.

• “And'the said buyer desires an option upon said lands in’order-that he may be able to sell the same, and have said land planted to fruit and nut trees.”

[234]

At the time of the execution of this agreement the acreage owned in fee by respondents, as ascertained by surveys subsequent to the execution of the option was considerably less than 6,000 acres, but after the execution of the option, and before tender thereunder, respondents had acquired title to 6,028.15 acres, and claim that was the acreage contemplated, whereas, appellant urges that only the land to which respondents had title in fee, together with a portion owned by a son of the respondents, was included in the option and amounted to 5,708.01 acres. It is true that at the time of the execution of the option respondents had record title- to less than 6,000 acres, but embraced within the exterior boundary fences of respondents’ ranch, and in their possession for many years, were parcels of land standing in the names of—Pence 160- acres, Colyer 80 acres, 80 acres of unpatented government land, and 597.68 acres in the name of Robert Work, already referred to as a son of respondents. Appellant contends that the option agreement clearly shows on its face that the parties dealt only with the land then owned by respondents, approximating 6,000 acres in extent, situate in the counties named.