Rothenbusch v. Hebel
Before: Hall
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. F. B. Ogden, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
HALL, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to compel defendant Adolph Hebel to convey to plaintiff a house and lot,
[693]
bought and paid for with the money of plaintiff, but the title to which was taken in the name of Adolph Hebel.
Plaintiff had judgment as prayed for. Defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they have appealed from the judgment and order.
The land in question was purchased from one Daisy Green-lay, who conveyed the title to defendant Adolph Hebei. Plaintiff agreed to provide the entire purchase price, and accordingly the entire purchase price was paid out of the money of plaintiff. In her complaint she alleges, “That the consideration for said undertaking on the part of said' plaintiff was that said defendant, Adolph Hebei, would at all times give said plaintiff a home with said defendant, Adolph Hebei, in the house situated on said premises, and that said defendant Adolph Hebei would take charge of the running of said house, and would cause meals to be cooked for said plaintiff whenever said plaintiff was residing in said house, and that said! defendant Adolph Hebei would at all times take care of said! plaintiff herein, and that said defendant Adolph Hebei would at all times permit said plaintiff to have a room in said house in which said plaintiff could keep her personal belongings and her private papers.”
It is further alleged that defendant Adolph Hebei has refused to perform any of the terms and conditions of said agreement on his part.
The defendants in their answer deny that defendant Adolph Hebei entered into or made any agreement as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, but allege that plaintiff purchased the premises and caused the same to be conveyed to defendant Adolph Hebei as a gift.
The court found “That said plaintiff, in providing said sum of twenty-three hundred ($2300) dollars for the purchase of said land, and in directing a deed of said land to be executed to said defendant, did so under the belief that said defendant had agreed with said plaintiff that said defendant would at all times give said plaintiff a home with said defendant in the house situated on said premises, and that said defendant would take charge of the running of said house, and would cause meals to be cooked for said plaintiff whenever said plaintiff was residing in said house, and that said defendant would at all times take care of said plaintiff, and would at all times permit said plaintiff to have a room in said house-
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)