Ehrhart v. Mahony

California Supreme Court May 8, 1915 No. Sac. No. 2183.Published

Before: Sloss

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a suit by a vendor to enforce a lien for the purchase price of land is an action for specific performance, requiring the plaintiff to allege and prove that the contract was supported by adequate consideration and was just and reasonable. Because the complaint failed to allege these facts, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was reversed.

Issues

Whether a vendor's action to enforce a lien for the purchase price of land constitutes an action for specific performance.
Whether a plaintiff must allege and prove adequate consideration and fairness in a suit for specific performance.
Whether a vendor waives a lien on property by previously commencing an action at law for the purchase price.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The complaint does not allege, nor does the court find, facts showing that there was an adequate consideration for the obligation sought to be enforced, or that the contract was just and reasonable as to the defendants.”

“That the present action is one for specific performance cannot be questioned”

“Where the vendor retains the legal title, a proceeding at law for the purchase price is not a waiver of his right to proceed against the property.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Ben F. Geis, Duard F. Geis, and Will A. Dower, for Appellants.

SLOSS, J.

On September 27, 1910, the plaintiffs entered into a written contract with all of the defendants except Clifton, whereby plaintiffs agreed to sell, and said defendants agreed to buy, three mining claims in Calaveras County for the sum of three thousand dollars, of which fifty dollars was paid on the execution of the writing, and the balance was payable in installments. The vendees agreed to do all assessment work.

The complaint set up the contract, alleged an assignment by the vendees to Clifton, alleged, further, nonpayment of any part of the purchase price except the fifty dollars, the failure to do the assessment work, for which plaintiffs had been compelled to pay three hundred dollars, demand for the sums due, and a tender and continuous willingness and ability to convey a good title. The prayer was for judgment for the balance due and for the three hundred dollars paid by plaintiffs, for a decree that plaintiffs hold the legal title as security for the payment of the sums due, that they have a lien on said property to secure payment of such sums, that said liens be foreclosed and that the property, or so much as might be necessary, be sold to satisfy the demand. The defendants denied some of the allegations of the complaint, and set up various affirmative defenses, based on alleged frauds and misrepresentations on the part of plaintiffs. On all these issues the court found for the plaintiffs and judgment followed in their favor as prayed. Defendants appeal on the judgment-roll.

The appellants present a number of points, but only one of them is, in our judgment, entitled to favorable consideration.

Much stress is laid upon the fact that the descriptions of the mining claims in the contract vary from the descriptions found in the complaint and the findings. In each case the description is by name only, and the names, as given in the various papers, are not precisely the same. But the complaint embodies a copy of the contract, and alleges that the property agreed to be sold by said contract is described as set forth in

[150]

the complaint. This allegation is not denied, and it establishes the identity of the apparently differing descriptions.

The argument based upon the claim of fraud is futile, in view of the fact that the evidence is not brought up, and the findings negative fraud.

Ehrhart v. Mahony

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief