Anderson v. Broadwell

BARNARD, P. J.

This action was tried with

Anderson

v.

Broadwell,

(No. 594)

ante,

p. 130 [6 Pac. (2d) 260], and

Broadwell

v.

Anderson,

(No. 596)

ante,

p. 145 [6 Pac. (2d) 269], this day decided, and relates to what was called by the parties the “El Monte property”. In his complaint the plaintiff seeks to have his title quieted to an undivided one-half interest in tíie property, alleging title in himself in a first cause of action, and, in a second cause of action, that he paid one-half of the purchase price of the property upon the understanding and agreement that he was to have an undivided one-half interest therein. In their answer the defendants ■ admit that the plaintiff has a

[152]

one-third interest in the property, and allege that Robert Broadwell and Helen Lea Broadwell have each a one-third interest.

The following facts appear: In July, 1923, the plaintiff and W. B. Broadwell had more than $6,700 in a bank account in Hemet in the name of Anderson & Broadwell, the money having come from royalties from an oil lease on property they owned in Long Beach, and belonging equally to the two. About this time the two looked at the real property involved in this action and decided to buy it. The plaintiff left the matter of the purchase of the property to W. B. Broadwell and he in turn left the escrowing of the matter largely to his son Robert Broadwell. In the escrow papers, instructions were put in that the property was to be deeded to W. B. Broadwell, Robert Broadwell and the plaintiff. On July 9, 1923, the plaintiff received from W. B. Broad-well a letter reading in part as follows:

“I bought the 5 acres at 6700. It is the corner piece and has about a $200 crop on it—It will divide into 5 lots now and sell for $2500 a lot. The Shell Co. tried to lease it several years ago without a drill clause. The party selling knew of oil talk. They had held it a long time and wanted to get out. We pay cash as we got 100 off. So get Dfts for 6700 and send