Miller v. Yule

California Court of Appeal Jan 11, 1927 No. Docket No. 5349.Published

Before: Campbell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants wrongfully rescinded the contract of sale by forcibly re-entering and taking possession of the premises while the plaintiffs were not in default, thereby entitling the plaintiffs to recover payments made under the contract.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding that the purchasers were not in default on their contract payments.
Whether the vendor had the legal authority to rescind the contract after transferring the property to a third party.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the defendants, W. A. C. Yule, Josephine K. Yule, and M. M. Cory, wrongfully, wilfully, and without authority of law or fact took forcible possession of the land and premises and the dwelling thereon and rescinded the agreement of sale.”

“respondents might have construed the acts of appellant Yule in boarding up the doors and windows of the house on the premises as a trespass and sought damages in tort, yet they were also privileged to bring suit for money had and received”

CAMPBELL, J.,

pro tem.

This appeal is from the judgment made and entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants W. A. C. Yule and Josephine K. Yule. The defendant M. M. Corry did not appeal. The judgment-roll only is before the court.

On February 28, 1921, respondents entered into a contract with appellants for the purchase and sale of lots 3 and 10 in block 121 of Middletown, situated at No. 3141 India Street, in San Diego, the purchase price being $2,950. The respondents, who were the purchasers under the contract, made an initial payment when they executed the

[620]

contract of $500 in the form of a promissory note. The contract provides that the balance of $2,450 be paid at the rate of $35 or more per month, including interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum, payable on deferred balances, and that the buyer shall make monthly payments within the first year of $500 and each year thereafter until the balance due is reduced to $1,500, which shall be made into a mortgage, etc. Respondents made payments on the contract of more than the $500 required to be paid during the first year, but made no payments in the month of May, 1921, nor in the months of February or March, 1922, but made payments in April, 1922, and had made payments in months prior to the months in which no payments were made in amounts sufficient to cover the amounts due during those months at the rate of $35 per month, including interest.

The trial court found that on April 6, 1922, W. A. C. Yule and Josephine K. Yule sold and assigned the contract in question to defendant M. M. Cory and also made and delivered to defendant Cory a deed of conveyance conveying to him the property described in the contract of purchase and sale and at the same time executed and delivered to M. M. Cory a deed of trust for and to lots 1 and 12 in block 121 guaranteeing or securing the payments on the contract of purchase and sale entered into by appellants and respondents.

Appellants urge two points in support of their appeal: That the court erred in finding that respondents were not in default in their payments on the contract, and that.defendant Yule had no power to rescind the contract.

Miller v. Yule

AI Brief

CAMPBELL, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief