McRae v. Ross

SLOSS, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The complaint is in four counts. The first alleges the ownership by defendants of a ranch in Solano County, containing 521.65 acres; alleges that in 1910, said defendants offered to sell said ranch to plaintiff, or to any one designated by

[76]

him, for forty-one thousand dollars, and agreed that, in case of a sale to another, plaintiff was to have all of the price above forty-one thousand dollars; that in December, 1910, plaintiff secured a purchaser, who agreed with defendants to purchase the ranch for $62,468.87; and that nothing has been paid plaintiff. The second cause of action alleges that defendants placed the ranch in plaintiff’s hands for sale, and authorized him to sell it for forty-one thousand dollars, agreeing that he was to receive as commission the purchase price above forty-one thousand dollars; that a sale had been arranged through plaintiff for $62,468.87, and that no part of the excess over forty-one thousand dollars had been paid. The third count is based on the theory that plaintiff himself purchased the ranch for forty-one thousand dollars, but that defendants, acting in bad faith, refused to sell to him. The value of the ranch is alleged to be $62,468.87, and the difference between that sum and forty-one thousand dollars is claimed as damages. The fourth count attempts to set up a cause of action for specific performance of the contract to sell to plaintiff for forty-one thousand dollars. The answer denies most of the allegations of the complaint. The court found against the existence of the contract and authorization set up in the complaint, found that plaintiff did not produce a purchaser, or accept any offer of defendants to sell the property to him, and that defendants are not indebted to plaintiff in any sum. Judgment went in favor of defendants for their costs.

The findings above outlined are sufficient to sustain the judgment so far as the prayer for a money judgment is concerned. Whether or not the court failed, as appellant claims, to find on other issues, is therefore entirely immaterial. The fourth count demands no particular attention. It failed to state a cause of action, there being no averment, of facts showing the fairness of the contract or the adequacy of the consideration. This pleading would not have supported a decree of specific'performance.