Finn v. Goldstein

[607]

LANGDON, J.

This is an action brought to compel specific performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of certain real property in San Francisco, California. The written agreement pleaded and proved reads as follows:

“San Francisco, March 19, 23.

“Received from Mr. Joseph Finn Fifty Dollars. Deposit on three flats and four stores located on 24th St. Known as numbers 3257 to 3269—24th St.

“Cost of property—$11,500.

“Deposit to stand good until April 2, 1923.

“(Signed) Rose Goldstein.

“I accept above agreement.

“ (Signed) Joseph T. Finn.”

The only serious question involved upon appeal is the sufficiency of this memorandum. The trial court held it sufficient and gave judgment for the plaintiff. We think it meets the test laid down in

Breckenridge

v.

Crocker,

78 Cal. 529, 535 [21 Pac. 181], as follows: “But the memorandum must contain all the material elements of the contract; that is, it must show who is the seller and who is the buyer, what the price is and when it is to be paid, and must so describe the land that it can be identified.”

Fritz

v.

Mills,

170 Cal. 449 [150 Pac. 375], announces the same rule. In the instant case, the buyer is the plaintiff and the seller the defendant; the price is $11,500, and the time of payment is April 2, 1923. The land is described sufficiently for identification.

In the case of

McKevitt

v.

City of Sacramento,