Meux v. Hogue (1891) · DecisionDepot

Meux v. Hogue

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Sep 30, 1891 No. No. 14383Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that no enforceable contract for the sale of real property existed because the seller never authorized or ratified the specific terms of the written agreement, and the parties failed to reach a meeting of the minds.

Issues

Whether an enforceable contract for the sale of real property was made between the parties.
Whether the seller ratified the terms of the written agreement despite discrepancies between the agreement and the seller's understanding of the terms.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“But in order to constitute a valid contract, the minds of the contracting parties must meet and agree to the same thing.”

“We conclude, therefore, that the court below properly found that the plaintiff never authorized or ratified the contract of sale on which he relies.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Belcher, C. The plaintiff brought this action to enforce the specific performance of a contract to purchase from him certain lots of land in the city of Fresno.

The court below gave judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed, and has brought the case here on a bill of exceptions.

The principal question in the case is, whether an enforceable contract was made between the parties for the sale and purchase of the lots.

The material facts of the case, as shown by the record, are as follows: The plaintiff was residing in San Francisco, and was the owner of the lots; and prior to April 10, 1888, he had verbally authorized Rader & Bear, who were real estate agents at Fresno, to sell them. .

On the day of its date, the defendant executed and delivered to Rader & Bear a paper reading as follows: —

“ Fresno, Oal., April 10, 1888.

“ Received from S. L. Hogue and J. D. Power the sum of $100, in gold coin, being a deposit and part payment on account of bargain and sale made to them this day of a certain lot, tract, or parcel of land lying and being situate in the city of Fresno, county of Fresno, state of California, and bounded and described as follows, namely, lots 13, 14,15, and 16, in block 77, said lots having been sold to them this day for the sum of .$8,925, in gold coin, [445]subject to the approval of the owner, the balance to be paid, $1,425 on delivery of deed and abstract, $1,000 six months, and $1,600 on one year from February 1, 1888, at ten per cent interest from date, or this deposit to be forfeited without recourse, title to prove good or no sale, and this deposit to be returned subject to approval'of owner.

“We hereby agree to buy the property above described, upon the terms and conditions hereinbefore expressed.

“ á. L. Hogue.

“ J. D. Power,

“ By S. L. H.

“ Rader & Bear, Agents.”

On the same day, the agents wrote to plaintiff, but did not send him a copy of the contract, nor does it appear that he ever saw the contract or a copy of it. The letter is as follows: —

Meux v. Hogue

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief