Herman v. Rohan

California Court of Appeal Jun 27, 1918 No. Civ. No. 2357.Published

Before: Beasly

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants breached their contract by preventing the plaintiff from selling his interest in a market stall, as the agreement contained no condition regarding the suitability of the purchaser other than the payment of rent. Furthermore, the court found the agreement was not barred by the statute of frauds or the nature of the interest as a personal privilege.

Issues

Whether the defendants breached a contract by refusing to permit the plaintiff to sell his interest in a market stall to a purchaser.
Whether the oral agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds as not performable within one year.
Whether the plaintiff's interest in the stall was a non-assignable personal privilege.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the defendants could and did prevent Herman from selling by refusing to permit the person to whom he sold to take possession of the subject matter of the sale”

“the agreement was not one which, by its terms, was not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.”

“there is nothing whatever in the law to prevent the defendants from making an agreement, if they saw fit, to the effect that this personal privilege might be assigned.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

BEASLY, J.,

pro tem.

Stripped of immaterialities the facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff Herman took a stall in an Oakland market from the defendants. He purchased the right to occupy the stall in another market than the one in question here from the defendants, who were the owners of that market, and from another person who occupied the stall so purchased, and paid the defendants and his predecessor a substantial sum of money therefor. Presently the defendants built a new market, and Herman was transferred to a stall therein, and from time to time purchased additional

[680]

frontage, thus enlarging his stall, paying in each instance an •additional sum to the defendants as a sort of bonus therefor, and paying in addition $1.75 per front foot per month for each foot of space embraced within the stall. At one of the times when the plaintiff purchased extra frontage from the defendants, paying two hundred dollars therefor, they agreed, in consideration of this purchase, that the plaintiff might sell all his right, title, and interest in the stall for any price he might obtain to any purchaser he might secure, upon the condition only that the purchaser should pay the $1.75 per front foot monthly rental charged for the use of the property. Plaintiff thereafter secured a purchaser who was ready, willing, and able to buy Ms right to the stall for the sum of five hundred dollars, which he agreed to pay therefor, this sum being payment for whatever right and interest the plaintiff had in the market and for the fixtures in his stall. The defendants refused to permit this sale to be made, and refused to permit a transfer of the possession of the stall to the purchaser. Plaintiff thereupon began this action for breach of the defendants’ contract with him, and obtained a judgment in the court below for $475 as damages therefor.

On this appeal the defendants contend, first, that they did nothing more than agree that plaintiff could sell to a suitable person only. The answer to this is that the finding of the court, based upon sufficient evidence, is exactly as above set forth, and that there was no condition whatever in their agreement as to the suitability of the person to whom the plaintiff might sell, except that such person should pay the monthly rental, if that be classed as suitability.

Herman v. Rohan

AI Brief

Synopsis

BEASLY, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief