Tetenman v. Melekov

HAZLETT, J.,

pro

tem.

This action was brought to require defendants Leon Melekov and Mary Melekov, his wife, to specifically perforin an agreement of exchange of real properties made between plaintiffs and defendant Leon Melekov. The trial court decreed that defendants Leon Melekov and Mary Melekov specifically perform as prayed for in the complaint, by delivering their deed and paying $1,500 to the use and benefit of plaintiffs according to the agreement and certain escrow instructions made by the parties to carry the agreement into effect.

Defendants Leon Melekov, Mary Melekov, and Standard Construction Company appeal from the decree, but they filed no brief in reply to respondents’ brief.

The original agreement was executed on August 7, 1926, is in two parts, the first being a proposition to trade signed by plaintiffs, and the second part an acceptance signed by defendant Leon Melekov, and the descriptions of the properties are somewhat indefinite in some particulars, but the descriptions therein are such that under proper allegations in the pleadings the properties could be identified from them by the use of extrinsic evidence, following the rules announced in

Joyce

v.

Tomasini,

168 Cal. 234 [142 Pac. 67], and

McKevitt

v.

Sacramento,

55 Cal. App. 117 [203 Pac. 132]. The encumbrances against the properties were also sufficiently identified and described.

Three days after the agreement was made the parties established an escrow with defendant Bank of Italy for the purpose of completing the agreed exchange, and plaintiffs on their part gave their escrow instructions to defendant bank, and defendant Leon Melekov separately on his part gave the bank his escrow instructions. Each of the instructions described the properties by their legal descriptions and the encumbrances against each property.

Plaintiffs put into the escrow their grant deed of their property, running to defendant Standard Construction Company, and defendants Leon and Mary Melekov also put in their grant deed of their property running to plaintiff Etty Tetenman but defendant Leon Melekov failed to acknowledge it. Each deed described the property intended to be