Hancock v. Hubbell

California Supreme Court Jan 14, 1887 No. No. 11501Published

Before: Foote

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the plaintiff failed to prove actual damages, the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit because the plaintiff was entitled to have a jury determine if he was entitled to nominal damages for the defendant's breach of contract. Consequently, the order denying a new trial is reversed unless the defendant remits the costs judgment against the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit when the plaintiff failed to prove actual damages but established a breach of contract.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff's application to amend the complaint during trial.
Whether the appeal from the judgment was timely filed.

Disposition. Appeal from judgment dismissed; order denying new trial reversed conditionally.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the former was entitled to have the jury determine, upon a proper charge of the law by the court, whether or not they would render a verdict for nominal damages in his favor.”

“The judgment of nonsuit was therefore wrong, and the court should have granted a new trial upon the plaintiff’s motion.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract. The complaint alleges that on the 21st of January, 1880, the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of certain land, on which the taxes for the fiscal year 1878-79 had become delinquent; that about the time the land was to be sold for the taxes, he entered into a contract with the defendant, whereby he agreed to let the land be sold, and the defendant agreed to buy it at the tax sale, and hold any title thus acquired in trust for the plaintiff; that on the 25th of February, 1879, the land was sold and bought in by the defendant in pursuance of the contract, and was held by him in trust for the plaintiff; and that afterwards the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to allow the latter until the 24th of March, 1880, in which to redeem the land. For the purpose of showing a breach of the contract, the complaint further alleges that the plaintiff offered to redeem the land within the time limited; that the defendant refused the offer, and assigned the tax certificates of sale to one Anderson; that the latter has obtained tax deeds for the land which he has recorded, and has brought an action against the plaintiff to quiet his title to the land. On the trial, after the plaintiff had rested, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was granted, on the ground that the plaintiff had not suffered any damage. On the third day of the trial, the plaintiff asked leave to amend his complaint by alleging, as special damages, the expenses incurred by him for counsel fees and costs in the action to quiet title. The court refused to allow the amendment. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Foote, C. This is an appeal from a judgment of non-suit, and an order refusing a new trial.

We have carefully examined the record, and all the authorities cited by counsel. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was in possession of certain lands involved in this controversy, but did not aver that he had ever lost possession thereof, therefore it was not competent to introduce proof tending to show the value of the rents and profits of such land, as a foundation for a judgment against the defendant for the loss of its possession.

No special damages were pleaded, hence the evidence offered of expenses, attorney fees, etc., which were not the proximate result of the violation of the contract, or which in the ordinary course of things would not have been likely to result therefrom, was property excluded.

[539]The trust alleged was not proved by competent and legal evidence, as the written agreement, which was the only legal proof of its existence, offered did not tend to establish it.

The court did not abuse the discretion vested in it by law in refusing the plaintiff’s application to amend his complaint. The trial had been in progress for several days, the plaintiff was fully advised" early in the course of the proceedings that the defendant considered the complaint defective, and the latter made that fact evident by repeated objections to the introduction of evidence tending to prove damages claimed to have been suffered by the former.

It is plain that a continuance would have been the result had leave been granted to amend, which result would not have been caused by any fault of the defendant. (Graham v. Stewart, 68 Cal. 374.)

But the plaintiff claims that it was his right to have the jury pass upon the question, whether or not, upon the evidence before them of a breach of contract, he was entitled to a verdict for nominal damages.

We think the evidence did show a violation by the defendant of his contract with the plaintiff to permit the latter to redeem certain lands sold at tax sale, the former having possession of the certificates of such sale at the time the contract was entered into, such redemption to take place within a certain specified time.

Although the record does not show that any proof was offered which was admissible under the pleadings, that any actual damages were suffered by the plaintiff from the breach of the contract on the part of the defendant, yet as the contract was proved to have been violated, the former was entitled to have the jury determine, upon a proper charge of the law by the court, whether or not they would render a verdict for nominal damages in his favor. And if they had returned a verdict for the plaintiff for nominal damages, a judgment therefor would

Hancock v. Hubbell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief