Ware v. Quigley (1917) · DecisionDepot

Ware v. Quigley

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Dec 13, 1917 No. Sac. No. 2446.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the underlying contract did not create an express trust between the parties, and the acquisition of an option did not constitute a transfer of property sufficient to establish a resulting trust.

Issues

Whether the written agreement between the parties and a third party created an express trust under Civil Code section 852.
Whether the plaintiff's contribution of labor and money toward an option created a resulting trust under Civil Code section 853.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Reference to the document upon which appellant based his first contention shows it to be a contract, not between plaintiff and Quigley, but by both of them as one of the parties thereto with Morris Brooke”

“An option is not a transfer of property. No title is conveyed thereby.”

“The demurrers were properly sustained and the judgment is affirmed.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County. K. S. Mahon, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

VICTOR E. SHAW, J.,

pro tem.

This is an appeal by . plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal entered upon the sustaining of demurrers to the amended complaint without leave to amend. ° •

The complaint alleges that defendants Evans, Gregory, and James were the owners of certain described lands located in what is known as Butte Basin, in Sutter County; that on February

1913, there was executed by and between plaintiff and defendant Quigley an agreement as follows, to wit:

“Sacramento, Calif Feb. 8th, 1913.

“This agreement made this 8th day of Feb. 1913 between T. L. Quigley and J. H. Ware of Seattle, Wash, parties of the first part and Morris Brooke of the second part.

“In consideration of the help and assistance which the party of the second part is to give to the party of the first part in tying up or securing prices or options on certain properties in the Sacramento Valley more particularly known as the Butte Basin of said Valley, parties of the first part agree to pay the party of the second part a commission on all properties handled in said district of one third of a regular commission based on an understanding that a regular commission is five per cent.

“The party of the second part agrees to help parties of the first part in any way he can and shall be-willing and ready to give said parties at any and all times such assistance as he or his office can give.

“He further agrees that he or his office shall not operate in the above described district excepting to give assistance to the parties of the first part.

“T. L. Quigley.

“J. H. Ware.

“Morris Brooke.”

That

“in accordance with said agreement and the whole

thereof” plaintiff and Quigley procured from defendants Evans, Gregory, and James a ninety-day option taken in their joint names to purchase the land described in the complaint; that before the expiration of the option, “and in

full accordance tvith the terms of the foregoing agreement,

Ware v. Quigley

AI Brief

Synopsis

VICTOR E. SHAW, J.,

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief