Rulofson v. Billings

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Reinstein & Eisner, M. S. Eisner, Reddy, Campbell & Metson, and Campbell, Metson & Campbell, for Appellant.

The contract was established by competent evidence, and entitles the plaintiff to a specific performance against the defendants. (Van Dyne v. Vreeland, 12 N. J. Eq. 142, 145, 151; Davidson v. Davidson, 13 N. J. Eq. 246; Pflugar v. Pultz, 43 N. J. Eq. 440; Vantine v. Vantine (N. J.), 15 Atl. Rep. 249; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 3 Sand. Ch. 279; Godine v. Kidd, 19 N. Y. Supp. 335; 46 N. Y. St. Rep. 813; Gates v. Gates, 34 App. Div. 608; 54 N. Y. Supp. 455, 456; Wright v. Wright, 99 Mich. 170; Sutton v. Hayden, 62 Mo. 101; Sharkey v. McDermot, 91 Mo. 647;1 Healey v. Simpson, 113 Mo. 340; Quinn v. Quinn, 5 S. Dak. 328;2 Brixton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah, 480; Burns v. Smith, 21 Mont. 251;3 Kofka v. Rosicky, 41 Neb. 328;4 Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 359;5 Lynn v. Hockaday, 162 Mo. 111.6 Townsend v. Vanderwerker, 160 U. S. 184; Whiston v. Whiston, 76 Ill. App. 533; Owens v. McNally, 113 Cal. 444.) The court erred in admitting for the defendants declarations of Captain Hall, made outside of the hearing of the plaintiff, that he was guardian of the plaintiff. (Rice v. Cunningham, 29 Cal. 500, 501; Poorman v. Miller, 44 Cal. 275, 276; Fischer v. Bergson, 49 Cal. 297; Stephenson v. Hawkins, 67 Cal. 106; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1870, subds. 3, 4; Wilson v. Wilson, 6 Mich. 14; Ward v. Ward, 37 Mich. 256, 257; Reese v. Marrian, 5 Wash. 373; Bristor v. Bristor, 82 Ind. 277.) Such declarations were no part of the res gestee. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1850; 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 99-101, 118, 119; Clunie v. Sacramento Lumber Co., 67 Cal. 313; Williams v. Southern Pacific Co., 133 Cal. 550; Osborn v. Robbins, 37 Barb. 482; Murray v. Cone, 26 Neb. 278, 279; Carter v. Buchannon, 3 Ga. 513; Hubbard v. Barker, 83 Mass. 100, 101.) A party cannot, after insisting upon the admission of improper evidence over an objection to its admissibility, defend his course by contending that the error was harmless. (Lissak v. Crocker Estate Co., 119 Cal. 444; Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 383.) Prejudicial error is presumed in such case. (Estate of James, 124 Cal. 658.)

Chickering & Gregory, and Van Ness & Redman, for Respondents.

A decree for a specific performance may be granted or withheld, as equity and justice may demand in view of all the circumstances. (McCabe v. Mathews, 155 U. S. 550; Wallace v. Rappleye, 103 Ill. 229 (248); Brown v. Covillaud, 6 Cal. 566; Bruck v. Tucker, 42 Cal. 346; Easton v. Millington, 105 Cal. 49; Owens v. McNally, 113 Cal. 444.) Contracts of the character sued upon in this action are viewed by the courts with suspicion and distrust, and a complainant in such a case will not be given a decree unless the contract, as testified to, is in all respects fair and equitable and upen adequate consideration, and its terms are- in themselves definite and certain, and proven by the strongest and clearest evidence. (22 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 1008, 1075-1077; De Sollar v. Hanscom, 158 U. S. 216; Nickerson v. Nickerson, 127 U. S. 668; Hennessy v. Woolworth, 128 U. S. 438; Graham v. Graham’s Exrs., 34 Pa. St. 475 (480); Wallace v. Rappleye, 103 Ill. 229; Wood v. Evans, 113 Ill. 186;1 Berry v. Hartzell, 91 Mo. 132; Gall v. Gall, 19 N. Y. Supp. 332; 64 Hun, 601; Wilson v. Heath, 53 N. Y. Supp. 166; 23 Misc. Rep. 714; Shakespeare v. Markham, 72 N. Y. 400; Johnson v. Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. 332;2 Watson v. Richardson, 110 Iowa, 673; Agard v. Valencia, 39 Cal. 301; Magee v. McManus, 70 Cal. 553 (556); Owens v, McNally, 113 Cal. 444.) The proof must in every essential particular correspond with the contract stated in the bill. (22 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 1075; McFarland v. Reeve, 5 Del. Ch. 118; Magee v. McManus, 70 Cal. 553 (556).) And in this class of eases the law should be rigidly applied. (Gall v. Gall, 19 N. Y. Supp. 332; 64 Hun, 601; Wilson v. Heath, 53 N. Y. Supp. 166; 23 Misc. Rep. 714; Watson v. Richardson, 110 Iowa, 673.) The contract merely to be a father to the plaintiff, and to provide for him, is too indefinite to be enforced. (Wall’s Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 460;1 Shakespeare v. Markham. 72 N. Y. 405.) And under such a contract the right of testamentary disposition remains. (Wallace v. Rappleye, 103 Ill. 229; Wilson v. Heath, 53 N. Y. S. 164; Wood v. Evans, 113 Ill. 186;2 Shearer v. Weaver, 56 Iowa, 578.) The declarations objected to are part of the res gestee and admissible as such. (21 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 99-102, 113; Burns v. Smith, 21 Mont. 251;3 Brookfield v. Warren, 16 Gray, 170.) As the contract was not legally enforceable, any error in the admission of evidence was harmless. (Thorndike v. City of Boston, 1 Met. 242, 247; Smith v. Russ, 22 Wis. 439; Winkley v. Foye, 33 N. H. 171;4 Dayton v. McAllister, 129 Cal. 192; Foster v. Bowles, 138 Cal. 449; Pacific Investment Co. v. Ross, 131 Cal. 8.)