Tohler v. Folsom

California Supreme Court Dec 15, 1850Published

Before: Benotett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a verbal contract for the sale of land, while not binding on its own, may be enforced through specific performance when the vendee has taken possession and made significant improvements, as denying enforcement would result in a fraud upon the vendee.

Issues

Whether a verbal contract for the sale of land is sufficient to transfer title.
Whether the circumstances of the plaintiff's part performance entitle him to specific performance of a verbal contract for the sale of land.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a verbal contract was, of itself alone, insufficient to transfer the title to real estate.”

“The question, therefore, in this case, is, whether there has been such a part performance by the plaintiff, as to put him into a situation, which would be a fraud upon him, unless the verbal agreement should be enforced.”

“to permit the defendants now to deprive him of the land, and also of his improvements, would, it appears to us, be suffering a manifest fraud to be practiced upon him.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the superior court of the city of San Francisco. The parties agreed to waive a jury trial in the court below, and stipulated that the following facts should be taken as a special verdict, and that the court should render judgment thereon, to be of the same force and effect as if they had been specially found by a jury; viz.:

“ That Wm. A. Leidesdorff was in possession of a lot claiming title thereto situate in the city of San Francisco, and “ known on the official plat of said town as lot No. 94, which “ lot is 50 varas square : That about 1st May, 1848, said Leid-esdorff bargained and sold said lot to the plaintiff at and for “ the sum of $500, payable in one and two years without secn- “ rity, and that no memorandum or note in writing of said eon- “ tract was made, nor any conveyance for said lot executed by “ said Leidesdorff' in his lifetime, who was taken sick a day or “ two after said contract was made, and in some seven or eight days “ thereafter died : That said Leidesdorff entered with the plain- “ tiff into the office of the Alcalde of said town talking about title “ papers, and holding in his hands papers having the appear- “ anee of title papers, which he handed to the plaintiff', and, in “ reply to an inquiry made by him the plaintiff, he the said “ Leidesdoi’ff replied he wanted no security, and that he the “ plaintiff might make out the papers as he pleased : That “ the plaintiff then produced from his possession several origi“nal deeds; to wit: original grants from Francisco Sanchez, “ Juez de Paz in San Francisco, to Manuel Sanchez, dated 3d “ December 1843—deed from Manuel Sanchez to A. A. Andrews dated 8th December 1843—deed from Augustus A. “ Andrews to William A. Leidesdorff, dated 20th December “ 1847, as the deeds above referred to, and proved their due “ execution : That the said Leidesdorff sold said lot to the plain- “ tiff, with a knowledge that he the said plaintiff bought to “ build thereon : That upon said contract he took possession of “ said lot, and proceeded to enclose and improve it, building a “ dwelling and several out-houses thereon at very great cost, the “ plaintiff being and having been ever since uninterruptedly in “ possession : That said Leidesdorff, previously to sale to plain- “ tiff, offered said lot to others at same price, but it was declined, “ because the price was thought too high : That the plaintiff, “ after the death of said Leidesdorff, applied to his administra- “ tor for a title to said lot, supposing in the then unsettled con- “ dition of the law and the country, that he was the proper per- “ son to make a title, more especially as the said Leidesdorff “ died without heirs known to the plaintiff, who refused how- “ ever to give him a title to said lot, although the plaintiff was “ ready and offered to comply with the terms of the contract on “ his part: That the plaintiff thereupon instituted a suit against “ said administrator for a specific execution of said contract in “ the Alcalde’s court in and for the city of San Francisco, who “ decreed that he should make the plaintiff a title therefor : “ That the purchase money was duly tendered to said adminis- “ trator, who refused to receive the same, and who continued to “ refuse to make title to said lot to the plaintiff notwithstanding “ the decrees of the said Alcalde.”

By the Court,

Benotett, J. A verbal contract was entered into between the plaintiff and one Leidesdorff, now deceased, to whose estate the defendants have succeeded, by which Leid-esdorff conveyed to the plaintiff a lot of land in the city of San Francisco, and the plaintiff agreed to pay therefor five hundred dollars in equal instalments in one and two years. It was decided in Iloen v. Simmons et al., that under Mexican as well as American law, a verbal contract was, of itself alone, insufficient to transfer the title to real estate. That point has again been argued, and we think it entirely clear that the decision in Hben v. Simmons et al. was correct. Unless, therefore, there be circumstances in this case which distinguish it from that, the plaintiff cannot recover. There, the defendants, who had filed a cross bill and thereby become actors, claimed that they were entitled to a specific performance of their verbal agreement. It appeared, however, that there was not even a verbal contract of sale in presentí, but a contract to convey at a future period, and that that contract -was, by the understanding of the parties, to be reduced to writing and signed by them, which was never done. There was no delivery of possession of the land either corporeally or symbolically; the party claiming the specific performance, did not take possession of the land, with the knowledge or consent of the other party, or his agent, or representative, and had entirely neglected to comply, on his part, with the stipulations of the verbal contract so far as the payments were concerned. We thought, he had no right to a specific performance.

In the present case, Leidesdorff, at the time of the verbal contract of sale, delivered to the plaintiff the title deeds of the [211]lot, and the latter afterwards took actual possession of the land and has made improvements thereon at a cost of several thousand dollars. Before bringing suit, he tendered, and deposited in court, the full amount of the purchase money, and did all that a court of equity would require him to do, in order to enable him to come into court and say, that he had, on his part, done equity ; and although the verbal contract, of itself, be not binding, yet, if the circumstances be such, that a court of equity would decree a specific performance, then the judgment appealed from ought to be affirmed.

In Hoen v. Simmons et al. the court was asked to decree a specific performance on two grounds; 1. That the verbal contract was equally valid, as if it had been in writing; and 2. Admitting the verbal contract to be invalid, that the circumstances were such, that the court ought to decree a specific performance. We decided both points in the negative.

Tohler v. Folsom

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief