Scott v. Glenn
Before: McFarland
Synopsis
Money Rad and Received—Contract of Sale — Payment of Purchase-money— Nonsuit.—In an action for money had and received, a non-suit should be granted where the plaintiff’s evidence merely shows that the money was paid as part of the purchase price of land under a contract which provided that the money was paid upon the express condition that it was not to be returned, but was to be forfeited unless further payments of the purchase price were made within a definite period.
Id.—Vendor and Purchaser — Contract of Sale—Agency — Ratification— Estoppel—Rescission by Purchaser.— Where one of the vendors named in the contract of sale signed his own name and that of the other vendor, whose agent he was, and the other vendor ratified the signature, and joined in demanding the purchase-money and in tendering a deed of the land, in compliance with the contract, the latter is estopped from defending against the contract, and the purchaser cannot plead the agent’s want of authority as a ground for repudiating the contract and recovering back the purchase money paid.
Id. — Executed Contract — Recovery of Purchase-money Paid. — An attempt to recover part of the purchase-money paid under the contract of sale is an attempt to undermine an executed contract, and the purchaser cannot invoke, in favor of such action, principles which apply to actions for the enforcement of executory contracts.
McFarland, J. This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment against him for six hundred dollars, and from an order denying a new trial.
The complaint merely avers that on April 4, 1888, defendant was indebted to plaintiff and certain other named persons in the sum of six hundred dollars for money had and received for the use and benefit of said persons; that the others assigned said indebtedness to plaintiff; and that no part of the same has been paid. The answer specifically denies all the averments of the complaint. There is also a cross-complaint, in which defendant avers that on said April 4, 1888, he and one Meux, being the owners of certain described lots of land, contracted, in writing, with plaintiff and certain other persons to sell them the said lands for one thousand eight hundred dollars, — six hundred dollars in cash, and the balance in two equal payments in six and twelve months; that the six hundred dollars sued for was the first cash payment on said contract; that plaintiff and said other persons went into possession of the land under said contract; that when the other payments became due, defendant and said Meux demanded payment, and tendered a good and sufficient deed of conveyance of said land, but that plaintiff and said other persons refused to pay or to accept the deed, and that said Meux assigned all his right to defendant. The prayer of the cross-complaint is, that he recover judgment against plaintiff and said other parties for said deferred payments, and for the enforcement of a lien on said land. The answer of the plaintiff, Scott, and others, to the cross-complaint, first denies, in terms, that there was any such contract in 'writing; but it admits that there was such a verbal contract, that the six hundred dollars [223]was paid thereon, and that “then and there” the said Glenn and Msgux executed, in writing, a receipt and memorandum of said contract, in words and figures as follows: —
“Received of Scott, Cuíten [and others named], six hundred dollars, one third of purchase price of lots Nos. [describing the lots], leaving a balance of twelve hundred dollars, in gold coin, due on said purchase, which, by the terms of this sale, is to be paid in two equal payments, together with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum on the whole of said unpaid purchase price, at the maturity of each installment, till paid in like coin, within six and twelve months from date hereof. If paid as above stated, the above-named Scott, Cuíten .... will be entitled to a deed of the above-described lots; otherwise this agreement becomes void, and all payments made hereon shall be forfeited.
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)