Weaver v. Ratcliffe

California Court of Appeal Sep 5, 1931 No. Docket No. 461.Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's failure to make a finding on the appellants' defense of mutual mistake was not prejudicial because the pleadings were insufficient to state a cause of action for reformation and the evidence did not support such a claim.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by failing to make a finding on the appellants' defense of mutual mistake.
Whether the appellants' pleadings sufficiently stated a cause of action for the reformation of a written contract based on mistake.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When measured by the rules laid down in these cases appellants’ pleadings do not state a cause of action for the reformation of a written instrument because of mistake.”

“If a finding had been made, it must have been adverse to them, and they suffered no prejudice by the failure of the trial court to make such a finding.”

MARKS, J.

This action grew out of a written agreement between the parties hereto for the sale of a one-half interest

[514]

in land in San Diego County, California, and a one-quarter interest in the minerals and oils therein, which contract was in words and figures as follows:

“March 21, 1927.

“This agreement entered into by and between' J. H. Ratcliffe and L. A. Ratcliffe of Chula Vista, of the first party and J. T. Weaver of Pacific Reach, second party, witnesseth: For and in consideration of the sum of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, we J. H. and L. A. Ratcliffe do hereby bargain sell and convey to J. T. Weaver a one-half interest in the following described property and a one-fourth interest in all mineral and oil values which may be contained therein; lots 12 and 13 in block 69 Tp 18 R. W. being a part of the National Ranch (Rancho de la Nación) also described as the San Diego Acres and being the location of what is known as the Todd oil well, San Diego County Cal.

“It is understood and a part of this agreement that this land is now held by option by the first party from H. J. Adams and that there is due him the sum of $150.00 per acre which is to be borne and paid for by the parties of this contract share and share alike. The amount due Mr. Adams is $3000.00 and the First party is to pay one-half and J. T. Weaver one-half of this amount.

“Signatures,

“ J. H. • Ratcliffe

“First Party

“L. A. Ratcliffe

“First Party

“Witnesses to Signatures:

( (

“J. T. Weaver

“Second Party.”

<<_o

The court found that parties executed the foregoing contract and that respondent paid appellants the $500 mentioned therein and that within a reasonable time thereafter respondent was ready, able and willing and offered to pay appellants the balance of his portion of the purchase price of the property. It further found that the appellant’s interest in said property was evidenced by an option which they did not exercise; that they failed and refused to accept

Weaver v. Ratcliffe

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief