Abbott v. '76 Land & Water Co.
Before: Thornton
Synopsis
Landlord and Tenant — Lease —Option to Purchase — Renewal — Parol Extension ou Option — Clause Omitted by Agreement. — An option to purchase inserted in a lease for one year, with the understanding that the lease may be renewed from year to year, not exceeding two more years,'and that the option may be exercised upon previous notice on the 1st of October in any year throughout the entire tenancy, at prices to be fixed by the lessor annually, continues under a renewed lease for a second year, though the clause mentioning the option is left out of the second lease, by agreement, as unnecessary, with the mutual auderotanding and agreement that the option was nevertheless extended.
Id. — Purchase Price. — The purchase price remains as specified in the lease for the first year, if the lessor did not avail himself of the right conferred by the terms of the contract to change the price for the second year, but merely refused to receive the money tendered, and repudiated the contract when the option was exercised under the second lease.
Id. — Specific Performance — Evidence—Corporations—Declarations of Secretary —• Managing Agent. —■ In an action to enforce the option to purchase against the corporation lessor, statements made to the plaintiff by the secretary of the corporation, at the time of the renewal, as to the immateriality of the omission and the extension of the right of purchase under a general rule of the corporation, are admissible in evidence against the corporation, it appearing that the secretary had charge of its business, and acted for it in the leasing and selling of its lands.
Thornton. J. The option in plaintiff to buy the land under the lease, or cropping contract, entered into by the plaintiff and defendant, bearing date the seventh day of December, 1885, continued for two years from the first day of October, 1886. It makes no difference that it was not inserted in the second lease. [328]It was left out of the second lease hy agreement, as something unnecessary. The defendant had a right to change the purchase price during the execution of the lease, provided it did so prior to the 1st of October of each year. It never did change this price. It therefore remained as in the first contract. The plaintiff exorcised and gave notice of his intention to purchase, under the option clause above mentioned, on the 3d of September, 1887, and then offered to pay the installment of the purchase-money then due, viz., one fourth of it, and interest on the portion not then due, and offered to comply in all respects with his contract. The defendant refused to receive the money, and repudiated its contracts with the plaintiff. We think that the judgment is correct, and in accordance with the principles of law, and should be affirmed.
The statements of the secretary of the defendant corporation made to plaintiff were properly admitted. It is evident that the conduct of the whole business was left by the company to him; that he was fully authorized to act, and did act, for the company in its dealing Avith plaintiff, and others in the like situation, in regard to the business connected Avith the leasing and disposition of its lands. The determination of this action by the court below is in accordance with well-settled legal principles. The record shows no error.
Judgment affirmed,
Sharpstein, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
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)