Mori Saiki v. Hammock

RICHARDS, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the superior court in and for the county of Los Angeles in an action instituted by the plaintiff through his guardian

ad litem

to quiet title as against certain alleged claims of the defendants in and to certain property described in the complaint. An amended complaint was later filed which included a demand on the part of the plaintiff for specific performance, and the action was tried upon the amended complaint and the answer of the defendants thereto, together with a cross-complaint wherein the defendants sought to have the title of certain of the defendants quieted to said land. The facts of the case, which were in the main undisputed, are these: On or about June 9, 1920, one T. Saiki, who is the father and guardian

ad litem

of the plaintiff, and who is a Japanese alien, entered into a contract for the purchase by and sale to him of the real estate described in the complaint for the price of $4,500, the defendants Luke Hammock and Hannah Hammock being at the time the owners thereof and the other parties to said contract. The sum of $50 was paid by T. Saiki as a deposit and part payment upon account of said contract upon the date thereof, and the sum of $4,450, being the balance of the purchase price, was to be paid within sixty days thereafter. The said balance due upon the contract was within said time paid to and received by said defendants, who thereupon delivered

[92]

to T. Saiki the possession of said property. Thereafter and on September 9th T. Saiki assigned to his minor son, Mori Saiki, the plaintiff herein, all of his right, title and interest in and to said contract and in and to the property described therein. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff, by his guardian

ad litem,

demanded of the Hammocks, but was refused, a deed to said real estate; whereupon the present action was instituted against the defendants Luke and Hannah Hammock and certain other defendants who are sued in the original and amended complaint by fictitious names. The defendant Luke Hammock answered separately, setting forth that in the meantime his wife, Hannah Hammock, had died, and that he had succeeded to her community interest in said property. The answer of said defendant, while admitting the payment to him by plaintiff’s assignor of the aforesaid sum of money as the purchase price of the property, denies that the plaintiff or his assignor has or ever had any interest or estate in the property. The said defendant further, for want of information or belief, denies the assignment of said contract by T. Saiki to the plaintiff herein. By way of affirmative defense said defendant alleges that at the time of the execution of the contract with T. Saiki the latter was a subject of Japan and an alien ineligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States, and was therefore disqualified from owning, holding, possessing or transferring any interest in real estate of the character of that described in the complaint herein under the laws of the state of California and the treaty between the United States and Japan. The said defendant denies that either himself or his wife had any knowledge of the fact that T. Saiki was such ineligible at the time that they entered into said contract and also at the time when they received the entire purchase price of the property as provided by the terms thereof. He further alleges that upon becoming informed that T. Saiki was an ineligible alien he offered to return to him the entire purchase price of the property, which, however, the latter refused to receive. He admits that T. Saiki was given possession of the real estate at the time of the payment by him of the purchase price thereof and that he continued in possession notwithstanding the fact that the same is residential property, which T. Saiki as an ineligible alien is not entitled to hold or possess. Said defendant then proceeds to allege