Norton v. Sturla

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

The findings of the superior court show that the defendant entered into possession of the premises in controversy as tenant of plaintiffs under a written lease for the period of one year from June 21, 1886, at a rental of forty dollars per month, and that contemporaneously with the written lease a contract of sale was executed and delivered, binding the plaintiffs to convey the premises to the defendant in one year from that date, upon payment of a specified sum, the latter contract expressly declaring that the possession lield by the party of the second part is that of tenant, and not as vendee, and that time was of the essence of the contract. The defendant, in her answer, alleged that interest was paid upon the purchase-money by way of rent, but the superior court found to the contrary. At the expiration of the written lease, there was a verbal renewal of rental for one month at an increased rental, fifty dollars being paid to July 21, 1887, and a subsequent payment of the same amount by defendant for the month of August, 1887; but the superior court found that these payments were made as rent, and not as purchase-money, or as interest thereon, and that there was no renewal of the contract of sale. The defendant offered to make further payments as interest on the purchase-money by way of rent, claiming that the time of payment under the contract of sale had been extended for one year, which offer was declined. The defendant made no further payment, or offer of payment, simply as rent. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.