O'Brien v. Perry
Before: THE COURT.
Synopsis
Contract for Life Tenancy—Personal Services—Specific Performance—Remedy at Law.—An oral agreement between a father and daughter that he would give her and her family the; rent of his home free for life, and would leave her by will the residue of his estate, subject to certain bequests, in consideration of her promise to provide him a home therein and supply his personal wants for life, is a contract on her part to render personal services during the life of her father, and eanncjt be specifically enforced by either party. For any breach of the contract while unperformed on her part, the parties must be left' to their remedy at law.
Id.—Breach of Contract—Tenancy at Will—Notice to Quit—Unlawful Detainer—Injunction.—Upon breach of the contract by the father, in refusing to remain to be provided for, and treating the occupation of his house by the daughter and her family thereafter as a tenancy at will, and, after giving them notice to quit, bringing an action of unlawful detainer against them, the daughter, not being entitled to a specific performance of the contract, cannot defend such action as a life tenant, and is not entitled to an injunction to restrain interference of the father with her occupation of the premises. ,
THE COURT.
Unlawful detainer. Plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant Annie Perry appeals on the judgment-roll. Plaintiff’s complaint proceeds upon the theory that defendants occupy the premises in question—a flat, Ho. 126-| Hoe street, San Francisco—as tenants at will of plaintiff.
Defendants pleaded occupancy of the premises under an oral ■contract with plaintiff by which defendants were to live in the flat, there furnish him a home, care for his personal wants, in consideration of which plaintiff was to make a will in appellant’s favor and permit her and her family to remain in said flat during plaintiff’s life.
Plaintiff had made a conditional conveyance of certain of his real property to two of his daughters, other than defendant Annie, but owing to some disagreement in relation thereto the deeds were recalled and a settlement made of the controversy. The findings as to this and some other matters do not aid materially in deciding the case and need not b'e particularly referred to. As to the agreement under which appellant claims the court found as follows: “During the month of May, 1895, and while said settlement was in progress [referring to the settlement of the controversy with his other two daughters], said plaintiff proposed to defendant Annie Perry, who was then living with her husband and family of three children upon premises owned by her and her husband on Eureka street, in the city and county of San Francisco, that if she would give up her said residence and go with her said husband and family to live in said flat belonging to him at Ho. 126£ Hoe street, .and if she would there furnish him with'a home for and during the remainder of his life with her and her family, and provide for his personal wants, he, the plaintiff, in consideration thereof, would give and grant to her the right to live with her said family in said flat, Ho. 126-| Hoe street, ■ during his, the plain
[528]
tiff’s lifetime, free and clear of any rent or other charge, and that he would thereupon make arid publish a will, in and by which he would devise and bequeath to her all of his property not deeded to his daughters Sarah and Lizzie, subject to the payment of a bequest to his daughter Mary Bergener of two thousand ($2,000) dollars, and a bequest to his son, Joseph Damien O’Brien, of one thousand ($1,000) dollars, and a bequest to his nephew, David O’Brien, of five hundred ($500) dollars, and subject also to the payment of expenses of administration, and the payment to his executors of one thousand ($1,000) dollars for the purpose of reinterring the remains of deceased members of his family, should such reinterment be necessary, and for the payment of masses for the repose of their souls. Said defendant, Annie Perry, then and there, by and with the consent of her husband, accepted each and all of said proposals on the part of plaintiff, and agreed to perform all of them.”
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)