Yates v. Eudemiller

PRESTON, J.

This action to compel specific performance of an agreement for the exchange of certain real properties located in Santa Monica and Venice, California, pursuant to written agreement of the parties dated October 20, 1927, was tried by the court without a jury.

Plaintiff ready at all times to perform, duly tendered a deed to defendants, which they refused to accept and they likewise refused to convey to plaintiff in conformity with said contract. The agreement of exchange consisted of a writing subscribed by defendants, stating that they desired to exchange their described property for that of plaintiff and appointing D. A. Fear on as agent to secure acceptance of the proposition, followed by a written acceptance thereof by plaintiff, agreeing to convey his said property to defendant Beatrice Eudemiller.

Upon the claim of defendants that alleged uncertainties .in the writing rendered it incapable of specific performance, the court found that said writing was a complete instrument and agreement by which the parties were bound; that it became effective as to all of the parties on said twentieth day of October, 1927, and. was delivered to said D. A. Fearon by

[28]

them without reservation, limitation or condition; and that said Fearon was at all times the agent of all of said parties.

Upon conflicting evidence as to the respective values of the properties to be exchanged the court found that the said contract of exchange was fair, just, reasonable and equitable; that the considerations between the parties from one to the other were just and adequate; that said contract was mutual between the parties and the value to each of the several properties intended to be exchanged was equal; further that the exchange was prevented solely by defendants’ neglect and refusal to perform, as above set forth.

Defendants, seeking to justify their nonperformance, relied upon three fraudulent representations alleged to have been made by plaintiff, to wit: That the building to be conveyed by him was a brick building with brick walls, covering the entire lot, whereas the back of the building was found to be stucco with a small yard in the rear, and that there were no colored persons within three blocks of said property, whereas colored persons were seen eating in the building next door. In this behalf the court found that it was not true that plaintiff so represented to defendant; that on the contrary plaintiff acted in good faith and defendants did not rely upon any representations made by him.