Fair View Farms Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Apr 22, 1932 No. Docket No. 8212.Published

Before: Tappaan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an action seeking both a money judgment and the cancellation of a contract constitutes an equitable action, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the superior court rather than the municipal court.

Issues

Whether an action for rescission and recovery of money paid under a contract is an action at law or in equity for jurisdictional purposes.
Whether the plaintiff is estopped from pursuing an equitable cause of action by having secured an attachment.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That the complaint in the action here involved states a cause of action for rescission and seeks equitable relief, there can be no question.”

“The granting of a money judgment alone, without the cancellation of the outstanding contract, would have afforded plaintiff but an incomplete and inadequate remedy, under the circumstances.”

TAPPAAN, J., pro tem.

etitioners secured an alternative writ of prohibition directed to the respondent, the Superior Court of. the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, requiring said court, at a date therein'fixed, to show cause why a peremptory writ of prohibition should not issue prohibiting and restraining said court in a certain action then pending before it from making, rendering or entering its decision in writing in said action, or making or entering findings of fact or conclusions of law or judgment therein. Treating the first paragraph of the return as a demurrer to the petition, we proceed on the theory that the facts alleged in the petition are admitted.

The action in which petitioners seek this writ is entitled

“Walsh

Fair View Farms Co. et al.”,

and the complaint alleges that plaintiff therein made and entered into a contract with defendants and petitioners by the terms of which petitioners contracted to sell to plaintiff certain real property and to plant upon said property so contracted to be sold, grape-vines and to care for said vines when so planted. It is alleged that plaintiff under the terms of this contract paid to defendants sums amounting to $1,084.07, and the complaint further alleges defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the contract, and there has been a total failure of consideration. There is also an allegation that plaintiff served upon defendants a notice of rescission of the contract. The prayer of the complaint is for the sum of $1,084.07 and for the rescission of the contract, and that it may be canceled and delivered up. The answer of petitioners denies all material allegations of the complaint.

The case came on for trial before the superior court, and at that time defendants and petitioners objected to the hearing of the cause on the ground that it was a cause at law and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal

[11]

court, the sum demanded being less than $2,000. The superior court overruled this objection and proceeded to hear the evidence, and at the close of the trial indicated that it would give judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants and petitioners for the sum found due and that the contract be canceled and rescinded. Thereupon petitioners secured this alternative writ of prohibition.

Fair View Farms Co. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief