Hicks v. Post

California Supreme Court Jul 3, 1908 No. L.A. No. 2034.Published

Before: Sloss, Shaw, Angellotti

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the contract was a mere agency agreement to sell land that expired by its own terms, and that an oral agreement to extend such a contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

Issues

Whether the contract created an equitable interest in the land or a partnership.
Whether an oral agreement to extend a real estate agency contract is valid.
Whether the plaintiff is estopped from denying the validity of an oral extension of the contract.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The contract was nothing more than an agreement of agency, by which the plaintiff, as owner of the land, gave to Post & Lockhart, in consideration of moneys to be expended and services to be performed by them, the exclusive right to sell”

“If we have properly construed the writing of March 3, 1903, the agreement for extension was simply one “authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate for compensation or a commission,” and was, under our statute,”

“The fact that, acting under an invalid agreement, he made efforts to find purchasers, cannot, of course, operate to prevent the other party from asserting the invalidity of the contract.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. Waldo M. York, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The defendant had an equitable lien upon the property, which the plaintiff cannot divest in an action to quiet title. (Hunt v. Turner, 9 Tex. 385, 60 Am. Dec. 167; Nicoll v. Ogden, 29 111. 323, 378, 81 Am. Dee. 311; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 992; Stucker v. Yoder, 33 Iowa, 177; Carpenter V.’ Hathaway, 87 Cal. 434, 25 Pac. 549; Dupuy v. •Leavenworth, 17 Cal. 263; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479, 29 Am. St. Rep. 133, 30 Pac. 605; Chapman v. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302, 37 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109.) The contract was of such a nature that it could not expire by lapse of time. Time not being made of the essence of the contract, equity will not decree a forfeiture. (Civ. Code, see. 1492; Miller v. Cox, 96 Cal. 339, 31 Pac. 161; Daly v. Buddell, 137 Cal. 671, 70 Pae. 784; Steele v. Branch, 40 Cal. 3; Beverly v. Blackwood, 102 Cal. 83, 36 Pac. 378; Cleary v. Folger, 84 Cal. 316, 18 Am. St. Rep. 187, 24 Pae. 280; Martin v. Morgan, 87 Cal. 203, 22 Am. St. Rep. 240, 25 Pac. 350.) The plaintiff is estopped by his own acts from claiming that the contract was not. extended. (Steele v. Branch, 40 Cal. 3; Alexander v. Jackson, 92 Cal. 514, 27 Am. St. Rep. 158, 28 Pac. 593; Hanson v. Slaven, 98 Cal. 377, 33 Pae. 266; Mc-Crwy v. Pfost, 118 Mo. App. 672, 94 S. W. 998.) The contract and acts of the parties created a partnership in the land. (Gray v. Palmer, 9 Cal. 616; Carpenter v. Hathaway, 87 Cal. 434, 25 Pac. 549; Chapman V. Hughes, 104 Cal. 302, 37 Pac. 1048, 38 Pac. 109.) ■

The contract did not create any interest in or lien on the land. (Hanna v. Flint, 14 Cal. 74; Holladay v. Frisbie, 15 Cal. 631; Price v. Sturgis, 44 Cal. 591; Heyn v. Philips, 37 Cal. 529; Byers v. Locke, 93 Cal. 493, 27 Am. St. Rep. 212, 29 Pac. 119; Snyder v. Wolford, 33 Minn. 175, 53 Am. Rep. 22, 22 N. W. 254; Michael v. Foil, 100 N. C. 178, 6 Am. St. Rep. 577, 6 S. E. 264; Lesley v. Eosson, 39 Miss. 386, 77 Am. Dee. 679; Huff v. Hardwick, 19 Colo. App. 416, 75 Pae. 593.) The contract did not establish the relation of partners between the parties. (Gleason v. White, 34 Cal. 258; Wheeler v. Farmer, 38 Cal. 203; Hanna v. Flint, 14 Cal. 73; Clark v. Emery, 58 TV. Va. 637, 52 S. E. 770; Sodiker v. Applegate, 24 TV. Va. 411, 49 Am. Rep. 252; Quackenbush v. Sawyer, 54 Cal. 439; Smith v. Schultz, 89 Cal. 526, 26 Pac. 1087; Vander-Jiurst v. DeWitt, 95 Cal. 57, 30 Pae. 94; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451, 55 Pac. 147; Cadenasso v. Antonelle. 127 Cal. 382, 59 Pac. 765.)

SLOSS, J.

Action to quiet title to a tract of one.hundred and twenty acres of land in Los Angeles County. The defendant answered, claiming ownership of an equitable interest in the land. His claim was based upon the provisions of a written agreement between plaintiff, Hicks, on the one hand, and defendant, Post, and Otis L. Lockhart, doing business as Post & Lockhart, on the other. This contract, dated the third day of March, 1903, recites that Hicks is the owner in fee simple of the land in controversy, having purchased the same from Post & Lockhart, and that he is desirous of having water developed upon the said property and the same subdivided and sold. By its terms Post & Lockhart agree to proceed at once to sink a well upon the land and install a pumping-plant thereon, and to develop water upon the said premises to the amount of sixty inches or more, they (Post & Lockhart) to pay all of the expense of developing the water and installing the pumping-plant. They further agree to attend to all the details of subdividing and selling the said premises in such tracts as may be desired by purchasers; together with a sufficient amount of water for each tract sold, and also to attend to the harvesting of any crops which may be produced upon the premises. In consideration of these covenants, and of the payment by Post & Lockhart of the expenses incurred in the development of the water and installation of the pumping-plant, Hicks agrees that Post

Lockhart shall have the exclusive handling, subdividing and sale of the said premises. It is agreed that out of the net proceeds of sale of the said lands, and of any crops which may be raised upon the said premises during the continuance

[25]

of the agreement, there shall be paid, first, to Hicks the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars an acre (the same being the first cost of the said lands to the said Hicks) and thereafter the net proceeds arising from the sale of said lands, water, and crops shall be equally divided between the said Post & Lockhart and the said Truman B. Hicks, one half to each. Post & Lockhart are given the option to make such terms of sale as they shall deem proper, subject to certain restrictions mentioned in the agreement. . The final clause of the contract reads as follows: “It is further understood and agreed between the parties hereto, that if the said property shall not be subdivided, sold and disposed of by the said parties of the first part (Post & Lockhart) at a sooner date, this contract shall be and remain in full force and effect for two years from the date hereof, and for such further time as may be agreed upon at the end of the said two years.”

Hicks v. Post

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief