Abbott v. 76 Land Water Co.

California Supreme Court Mar 13, 1894 No. No. 18117Published

Before: Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of a contract to purchase land because the written lease agreement contained no option to purchase, and the plaintiff's possession was referable to his status as a tenant.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff established a valid contract or option to purchase the land in question.
Whether the plaintiff's possession and improvements under a written lease constituted part performance of a verbal agreement to sell.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The findings are in favor of defendant, and negative all the facts relied upon by plaintiff as giving him a right, option, or privilege of buying the land.”

“There is no inference of part performance of a verbal agreement to sell to plaintiff, to be drawn from his possession and improvements under the lease, for that possession and the improvements thereunder are referable to his rights as a tenant.”

Synopsis

Landlord and Tenant—Option of Purchaser—Specific Performance —Conflict of Evidence.—Where a tenant entered into possession of land under a written lease containing no written option to purchase the land, a finding that there was no oral agreement giving such option, in an action brought to enforce the same, will not be disturbed where there is a material conflict in the evidence, and there is testimony tending to sustain the finding of the court.

Id.—Offer of Land Company to Settlers—Option to Purchase—Written Lease.—Where a land company issued circulars stating that its lands were for sale or to rent on easy terms, and that lessees might have the privilege of buying, but without indicating any consent that persons should locate upon its lands without first obtaining a lease or an agreement authorizing them to do so, and written leases either with or without an option to purchase were customarily insisted upon in the case of all who cultivated the company’s lands, a written lease executed to a tenant without containing any option to purchase must, in the absence of fraud or mistake, be deemed to embody the final determination of the parties.

Id.—Possession Under Lease—Part Performance—Verbal Agreement.—Where possession is taken under a written lease containing no option to purchase there is no inference of part performance of a verbal agreement to sell the land to be drawn from the possession of the lessee and his improvements on the land, which are referable to his rights as a tenant.

Searls, C.— This is an action for the specific performance of an alleged contract to convey the east one-half of section 31, in township 15 south, of range 24 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, with certain appurtenant water rights, all situate in the county of Fresno.

Defendant had judgment upon the findings of the court, from which judgment, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

It seems that five actions were brought by different persons against the same defendant, to enforce contracts for the conveyance of land under circumstances somewhat similar. In four of them the plaintiffs had judgment in the court below, which judgments were affirmed by this court. One of the four other cases was by this same plaintiff against the same defendant, and is reported in 87 Cal., at page 323.

The allegations of the complaint in this case are, in substance, as stated in the report of that case, on pages 324 to 327, and, being lengthy, will not be repeated here.

The answer, in the present case, denies all the material allegations of the complaint upon which a right in the plaintiff, either legal or equitable, to purchase the land in question could be based.

The court found that, on the first day of October, 1885, the plaintiff and defendant entered into the agreement set out in the complaint, marked Exhibit A. This was a lease, or what may be termed a cropping contract, by which plaintiff was given possession of the land for one year, with the privilege of extending the term from year to year for two years, the plaintiff and defendant each to have a share of the crops.

The lease varied from that under which the plaintiff held the land in Abbott v. 76 Land and Water Go., 8-7 Cal. 323, in one particular only. In the present case the lease gave to the tenant no option to purchase the land leased by him, while in that case it gave such option.

[569]The contract or lease was renewed on the 1st of October, 1886, for another year, upon the same terms as before, but including another three hundred and twenty acres of land, and without' any option of purchase being given to the plaintiff.

The court further finds that there was never any oral agreement that plaintiff should purchase or have the option to purchase the land described in the complaint, and, without going into details, it may be said the findings are in favor of defendant, and negative all the facts relied upon by plaintiff as giving him a right, option, or privilege of buying the land.

Abbott v. 76 Land Water Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief