Cameron v. Ayres

HENSHAW, J.

Plaintiff’s complaint is founded on the following contract:

“Oakland, Cal., June 21, 1913.

“Mr. H. C. Cameron,

“4812 Webster St.,

“Oakland, Calif.•

“Dear Sir: If you will negotiate a loan for me of not less than sufficient to erect building, or a lesser sum if hereafter consented to by me, giving as security my lot of land situate on the northwest comer of Fourteenth and Oak Streets, Oakland, California (150x116), I agree to erect a building on ■ said land, using therefor all of said money so borrowed, and I further agree to employ you as Superintendent of the construction of said building, and to pay you for your services ten (10%) per cent of the cost of construction, and payable to you as follows: Estimates of cost of construction shall be made semi-monthly and your ten per cent estimated from

[664]

that and to become then payable. I agree to commence said construction as soon after said loan is made as possible, and to continue said construction until completion.

“Respectfully,

“Annie L. Ayres,

“By Rowyen B. Ayres,

“Her Attorney in Pact.

“Accepted by H. C. Cameron.”

He pleads that he negotiated and secured a loan for defendant in the sum of sixty thousand dollars, which defendant agreed to accept and which, thereafter she refused to accept. So refusing, she failed and neglected to construct the building referred to in the contract. Plaintiff avers the due performance by him of his part of the contract and his willingness and ability to superintend the construction of the building, and for defendant’s breach of the contract lays his damages in the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars.

Upon the conclusion of the taking of the evidence of plaintiff, defendant moved for a nonsuit and her motion was granted. Prom the judgment which followed this appeal has been taken. The facts developed are that defendant made a written application to the Western Mortgage & Guaranty Company for a loan of sixty thousand dollars, stating the terms upon which she desired the loan. The executive committee of the Mortgage & Guaranty Company did not grant the loan upon defendant’s proffered terms, but offered to make a loan of sixty thousand dollars upon the real property described in the contract, provided that defendant added twenty thousand dollars to this sixty thousand dollars and would erect a building at a cost of eighty thousand dollars, repaying the mortgage loan in named amounts at stated intervals. Plaintiff’s testimony in relation to what followed this counter offer of the Mortgage & Guaranty Company is that he held a conversation with defendant’s authorized agent asking him if he was “going ahead with the building or not. He said, ‘I have lost the loan,’ I said, ‘Why, what is the matter?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘they took it away from me because I could not live up to their conditions.’ I said, ‘Well, what were they? They did not give you any impossible conditions.’ He said, ‘Well, I could not get the balance. of the money.’ ”