Coleman v. Edgar

California Court of Appeal Jun 10, 1927 No. Docket No. 3280.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the contract for the sale of land was for a lump sum rather than by the acre, and that the parties had reached a final settlement regarding acreage and boundaries prior to execution, rendering claims of mutual mistake or misrepresentation immaterial.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding the land was sold for a lump sum rather than by the acre.
Whether the failure to make express findings on alleged mutual mistake and misrepresentation constituted prejudicial error.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to testimony regarding the influence of prior representations on the defendant's decision to sign the contract.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Any representations made in the beginning of the negotiations and any mistake of fact then made by the parties became immaterial when, prior to the execution of the contract, they learned the true facts.”

“No prejudicial error appears in the record and the findings of the court are fully supported by the evidence.”

FINCH, P. J.

The plaintiff was given judgment for the balance alleged to be due on a contract, by the terms of which she agreed to sell and the defendants agreed to buy a tract of land and some personal property for the sum of $44,850. This appeal is from the judgment. The land is described in the contract as follows:

“Beginning at the ¼ section corner between sections 17 and 20, Township 2 south, Range 10 east, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, running thence south 80° west 1.44 chains, thence north 1314° west 23.70 chains; thence south 87%° west 2.32 chains; thence north 12%° west 56.60 chains to the Stanislaus River; thence north 65%° east 1.02 chains; thence north 46° east 10.04 chains; thence south lS^ east 87.11 chains; thence south 89%° west 6.04 chains to the point of beginning, containing 74.50 acres of land.”

Prior to the execution of the contract the plaintiff furnished the defendants an abstract of title, which they submitted to their attorney for examination. His report to them contained the following: “On March 1, 1917, Arthur E. Leitch executed a deed to Ada Isabelle Patterson, . . .

[722]

the description of which overlaps on this property described in the abstract. This places a cloud upon the title to this property, but to what extent I am unable to ascertain from the abstract. ’ ’ The description contained in the contract includes a part of the present channel of the Stanislaus Eiver and about a half acre on the north side of the river, there being something over four acres in all lying north of the south bank of the river. The land described in the Leiteh deed is bounded on the south by the middle of the river and overlaps that part of the plaintiff’s land lying between the north boundary line thereof and the middle of the river. Plaintiff secured a quitclaim deed from Ada Isabelle Patterson for the overlapped part. The present controversy relates to the part of plaintiff’s land which lies north of the south bank of the river. It is of little value, being mostly in the channel of the river and the small parcel north of the river being inaccessible from the south side. Defendants claim that they are entitled to a reduction in the purchase price of the land by reason of the worthless character of that lying in the river and that north thereof.

Coleman v. Edgar

AI Brief

FINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief