In re Estate of Dick
Before: Sharpstein
Synopsis
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, directing the executrix of the will of a deceased person to convey certain real estate.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Sharpstein, J. This is an appeal by the executrix of the will of Stephen W. Dick, deceased, from an order and decree of the superior court directing appellant to convey certain real estate, of which the testator died seised, to Charles Mayer.
The sole authority for making such a decree is found in chapter 9, title 11, Code of Civil Procedure, which contains this provision: —
“ When a person, who is bound by contract in writing to convey any real estate, dies before making the conveyance, and in all cases when such decedent, if living, might be compelled to make such conveyance, the court may make a decree authorizing and directing his executor or administrator to convey such real estate to the person entitled thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1597.)
The only question raised by this appeal is, Was the ■decedent in his lifetime bound by a contract in writing [285]to convey any real estate to the respondent,—i. e., so bound that he might, if living, be compelled to make such conveyance ? An agreement for the sale of real property or of an interest therein is invalid, unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent, and if made by his agent, is invalid unless the authority of the agent be in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.
In this case it is claimed that the agreement to sell, or the memorandum thereof, was made by the agents of decedent.
Conceding that they were duly authorized to sell, and that the writing which is relied on as an agreement to sell was subscribed by them as such agents, recourse must be had to the writing itself, for the purpose of determing whether the decedent, at the time of his death, was bound to convey any real estate to the respondent. The following is a copy of the agreement made by said agents: —
M. J. Burke. F. H. Burke.
Office of Madison and Bubke, Real Estate Agents, 401 and 403 Montgomery Street, Northwest Corner California.
San Francisco, April 5, 1886.
Received of Charles Mayer one hundred ($100) dollars, being deposit on account of four thousand ($4,000), United States gold coin, the purchase price of the property this day sold to him, subject to the owner’s approval, and being in the city and county of San Francisco, and state of California, and described as follows: Lot on the northwest corner of Guerrero and Twenty-second streets, 61 feet on Guerrero Street by 117i feet, more or less, to an alley.
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)