Scholes v. Silvius

California Court of Appeal Apr 19, 1922 No. Civ. No. 3688.Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in excluding a letter containing an admission of fact, as statements of independent facts within an offer of compromise are admissible against the party making them.

Issues

Whether a letter containing an admission of fact is inadmissible because it was part of an offer of compromise.
Whether a letter written by counsel under the express direction of a client is admissible as the client's own utterance.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If an admission, however, is made because it is a fact, the evidence to prove is competent, whatever motive may have prompted to the declaration.”

“It is apparent from this examination that the letter was written under the express direction of respondent and that it was her utterance and not merely that of her counsel.”

[396]

WORKS, J.

This is an action to establish a trust in a parcel of real property and to quiet title to an undivided one-half interest in it. The complaint alleges that upon certain considerations the parties had agreed to take title to the property, that defendant took title thereto in his own name in severalty and that he refused to convey to plaintiff her one-half interest. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appeals.

It is contended by appellant that the trial court erred in refusing to receive a certain letter in evidence. The missive was written by respondent’s counsel to appellant and it was offered upon the theory that it contained an admission that respondent was entitled to but a one-fourth interest in the property, the objection to its reception in evidence being that it was but an offer of compromise. The body of the letter follows:

“Mrs. Grace Scholes of this city has retained me to protect her interests regarding the property located at 3026 South Hoover street in this city in which she has a one-fourth interest as a result of the agreement entered into between you and Mrs. Scholes at the time the property was purchased.

“A search of the records in the County Recorder’s office made this morning, discloses the fact that no transfer of this property has been made and unless I receive a written assurance from you by return mail that you intend to live up to your agreement to the extent that she may be allowed to occupy the property at least until such time as the sum of $325.00, shall have been applied as rent at the rate of $25.00, per month, for the apartment, I am instructed to file an action to have her declared an owner in said property to the extent of one-fourth interest.

“The sum of $325.00 is arrived at by using the sum of $3500.00 as the actual value of the property. Mrs. Scholes is willing to settle the whole matter on the above basis; that is, that she be allowed to occupy the premises on the basis of $25.00 per month rent so long as any part of the said sum of $325.00, still remains due her; otherwise we will commence suit for an interest in the property.”

It should be observed in explanation of this letter that the mention of the figures contained in it and the offer of

Scholes v. Silvius

AI Brief

WORKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief