De Kahn v. Chase
Before: Wilbur
Synopsis
Specific Performance—Evidence—Uncertainty in Terms of Contract.—When all the evidence tending to establish a contract leaves the terms thereof in doubt, it cannot be specifically enforced.
Id.—Appeal — Evidence Justifying Reversal of Decree.—Where, on appeal from a judgment decreeing a specific performance, after giving full credit and weight to all evidence tending affirmatively to establish the agreement, and disregarding all conflicting evidence, it appears that the terms of the agreement are not clearly ascertainable, the judgment may be reversed.
Id.—Evidence Sufficient.—In an action for specific performance of an agreement by defendant to execute to plaintiff a lease for life of a house and lot, in consideration of a conveyance by the defendant of an adjoining lot, evidence found sufficient to sustain the findings for the plaintiff.
Id.—Findings—Conflict of Evidence.—In such ease where there was a conflict of evidence in relation to a claim by the defendant that her son was, as part of the agreement, to occupy a room in the house, a finding and judgment of the court against that claim could not be disturbed.
Id.—Finding Outside Issues.—In such case where there was no issue in the pleadings on the subject of taxes and insurance, a judgment providing that, in addition to a lease for life without payment of rent, the plaintiff was not required to pay any taxes or insurance, was erroneous in that respect, and the judgment should therefore be modified by striking out that portion thereof.
WILBUR, J.
This is an action for specific performance to compel the execution by the defendant of a lease for a life term to the plaintiff upon a lot occupied by her as a residence from 1905 to 1913, in pursuance of a verbal agreement whereby plaintiff alleges that she conveyed an adjoining lot by deed to the defendant, in consideration of an agreement upon the part of the defendant to erect upon the before-mentioned lot a cottage and give to her a life estate thereon. The deeding of the lot by plaintiff to defendant, and the occupancy by plaintiff for eight years of the premises claimed by her are admitted. The lot in question was bounded by fences and hedges. The principal item of the contract in litigation is the length of plaintiff’s term. On this subject she testifies: “Mrs. Chase said that she was going to build a little cottage for me for life, as long as I lived, .and that I could have it for the exchange of the lot on Spring Street at that time. That was the agreement. She said that I would never have to pay rent in the little house as long as I lived, ever. I gave the deed before the house was built. I lived in the house till September 21, 1913. I paid no rent, but attended to the repairs of the house. I was to keep the house in repair at my own expense. We would always speak about the little house as mine. She always said I had it for life.” The testimony
[283]
of the defendant and her witnesses as to the terms under which the plaintiff was allowed to occupy the house were in conflict with such testimony, and appellant insists that this court should review the finding of the trial court in the light of the rule, as she claims, that the plaintiff must have established her case by more than a preponderance of the evidence. The Civil Code provides that “An agreement, the terms of which are not sufficiently certain to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable, cannot be specifically enforced.” (Civ. Code, sec. 3390, subd. 6.) No doubt, therefore, when all the evidence tending to establish such contract leaves the terms thereof in doubt, it cannot be specifically enforced, and where, on appeal, giving full credit and weight to all evidence affirmatively tending to establish such agreement, disregarding all conflicting evidence, it appears that the terms of such agreement are not clearly ascertainable, then the action of the trial court enforcing such uncertain agreement may be reversed. (See
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)