King v. Meyer
Before: Sprague
Synopsis
Finding of Fact on Appeal when the Evidence is Conflicting.—Where, on appeal, it appears there was a substantial conflict in the evidence on the material issues embraced in the findings of fact made by the Court below, such findings will not be disturbed.
Parol Contract for Sale of Land—When Enforceable.—K. entered into a parol contract with L. to convey to L. a tract of land, upon the payment of a stipulated price therefor. L. paid the price as stipulated, and was let into possession. Thereafter K. brought ejectment to recover the possession of said land, to which action L. pleaded said contract and its said part performance, and prayed judgment for its complete performance on the part of K.: Held, that a judgment for L. as prayed was properly rendered.
Idem—When Objection Cannot be Taken for First Time in Appellate Court.—Where, in such case, K. objected to the legality of such contract, because in contravention of the Pre-emption Laws of the United States, for the first time in this Court: Held, that it was unavailable, because not presented in the Court below.
By the Court, Sprague, J.: Upon the question as to the fact of a verbal contract of sale of the lands in controversy between plaintiff and defendant, the payment of the full consideration agreed upon by defendant to plaintiff, and the entry of defendant into possession of the premises under such verbal contract of sale, there is a substantial conflict of evidence, and under the uniform action of this Court, although the evidence in this • case, as presented by the record, seems to be vague and unsatisfactory, we do not feel at liberty to disturb the ■findings.
Theerror assigned in the admission of “ Exhibit A” in .evidence, against objections of plaintiff, is untenable upon the first ground stated, as the evidence of the handwriting of the signature thereto was sufficient primarily to authorize its admission. Upon the second ground of objection we are not sufficiently advised, the instrument" or exhibit not appearing in the statement.
The facts as found by the Court are sufficient not only to defeat the action in ejectment, but to authorize a decree for specific performance in behalf of defendant. (Arguello v. Edinger, 10 Cal. 159.)
The point made in appellant’s brief as to the invalidity of the contract of sale under the Pre-emption Laws of the United States, does not appear to have been made in the Court below, and hence is not available in an appellate Court.
Judgment affirmed, and remittitur directed to issue forthwith.
Mr. Justice Sanderson expressed no opinion.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)