Los Angeles Etc. Land Co. v. Marr (1918) · DecisionDepot

Los Angeles Etc. Land Co. v. Marr

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

California Supreme Court May 8, 1918 No. L. A. No. 4229. Department One.Published

Before: Sloss

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that restrictive covenants in a deed are not rendered void by the inclusion of a false or meaningless exception, and that such language should be rejected to give effect to the parties' true intent. Consequently, the plaintiff established a prima facie case for the violation of the restrictions, making the granting of a nonsuit improper.

Issues

Whether restrictive covenants in a deed are void for uncertainty due to a false reference in the property description.
Whether a nonsuit was properly granted when the plaintiff established a prima facie case of covenant violation.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Obviously the exception of block 205 is a false reference in the description, and as such it must be rejected, thus giving effect to the deed according to the true intent of the parties.”

“There was a sufficient prima facie showing of the defendant’s violation of the restriction, continuing after repeated demands for compliance. The nonsuit should not, therefore, have been granted.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SLOSS, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment against it, entered upon the granting of a motion for a nonsuit.

Plaintiff’s predecessor, Verdugo Canyon Land Company, was the owner of a tract of land in Los Angeles County, and had made a contract with the defendant for the sale to her of a lot in said tract. A deed conveying the lot was executed subsequently. The contract, as well as the deed, contained various restrictive covenants, with a provision that in the event of any violation by the grantee, title should revert to the grantor. The complaint was framed upon the theory that the contract and the conveyance were uncertain with respect to both the description of the land conveyed and the terms of the restriction, and that the uncertainties were the result of mutual mistake of the parties. It was further alleged that the defendant had violated the covenant. The prayer was that the contract and the deed be reformed to express the true intent of the parties, and that the plaintiff be declared to be the owner of the lot and recover its possession.

The effort to have the instruments reformed has brought needless complication into the suit. Both parties are now agreed' that the description of the lot purchased was clear and definite, and that no reformation was required in this respect. We are satisfied that the contract and deed, read with the aid of the map to which they refer, contain as well an adequate definition of the terms and scope of the restrictive covenants.

The grantor’s land was known as Tract No. 250. It contained several hundred acres, and was shown, with its subdivisions, on the above-mentioned map, which was on file in the office-of the county recorder. The tract was traversed by an avenue, called Canada Boulevard, running north and south, and was subdivided into numbered blocks and lots, the numbers of lots running consecutively through the entire tract. Block 205, containing some thirty-nine acres, lay at the southerly end of the tract. It had not been divided into lots. The property purchased by the defendant was lot 54. It lay to

[245]

the west of Canada Boulevard, some distance northerly from the limits of block 205.

The conditions embodied in the deed read as follows:

Los Angeles Etc. Land Co. v. Marr

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief