Benson v. Shotwell
Before: Fleet, Garoutte
Synopsis
Appeal—Law of Case—Identical Facts on Second Appeal.—Where the facts appearing upon a second appeal are the same as those upon a former appeal, the legal effect of the facts'is determined by the decision on the former appeal, which is the law of the case, for the second appeal.
Id,—Questions of Fact Not Concluded.—The rule of the law of the case has no application to questions of fact, and nothing said in the opinion on a former appeal as to the facts can bind the trial court upon a second trial or be conclusive upon a second appeal.
Vendor and Purchaser—Examination of Title—Refusal of Vendor to Exhibit and Record Deed.—Where the purchaser requested the vendor to exhibit his deed, and to allow it to be recorded, and the vendor called with the deed in his hand, but did not open or exhibit it, and stated that he considered the original better than a record of it, and would give it to the purchaser on delivery of the property, whereupon he took it away, and did not record it, such action of the vendor was, in substance, a refusal to submit the deed for examination, or to allow a record to be made of it.
Id.—Tender and Demand by Purchaser—Failure of Vendor to Deliver Possession.—Where the purchaser, at the maturity of the contract of purchase, tendered the purchase money, and demanded compliance with the contract by the vendor, if the vendor does not tender or give to the purchaser the actual and present possession of the land described in the contract upon such-tender and demand, the purchaser is released from the contract, and a subsequent tender of possession would be unavailing.
Id.—Waiver of Possession—Acts Between Vendor and Parties in Possession—Knowledge of Purchaser.—Evidence of subsequent transactions between the vendor and third persons in possession of the premises, which are not shown to have been known to the purchaser, or to have been acted upon by him, is not sufficient to show any waiver by the purchaser of the delivery of possession demanded by him at the time of tender of the purchase money.
Id.—Change of Written Contract—Unexecuted Oral Agreement.— The provisions of a written contract of purchase cannot be altered by an unexecuted oral agreement.
Id.—Motives of Purchaser Immaterial.—The purchaser has a right to insist strictly on the contract of purchase, and the motives or good faith of the purchaser in so doing are immaterial, and cannot be inquired into.
Id.—Objection to Evidence—Erasure Not Shown in Record.—Where a certificate of acknowledgment is sufficient in form, an objection to it on the ground that an erasure appears thereon cannot be considered, where the erasure does not appear in the record otherwise than by the objection.
Id.—Evidence Stricken Out—Error Cured.—Where evidence, the admission of which is objected to, is stricken out, an exception to its admission cannot be considered upon appeal. ■
Opinion — Fleet
„ Van Fleet, J. This is the second appeal in this case. The first appeal was from a judgment in favor of [165]plaintiff, which was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial. (87 Cal. 49.) On the second trial, the plaintiff again recovered judgment, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court on the former appeal. On that appeal it was determined, as matter of law, that, by the terms of the contract in question, defendant was entitled to a good paper title of record, and was not bound to accept a title resting .on matters dehors the record; that the title tendered by plaintiff was not such as was required by the contract; that defendant was entitled to receive an actual possessio pedis of the whole lot, and was not bound to accept a constructive possession by attornment of tenants; and that, the attempted delivery of possession did not meet the requirements of the contract. The facts disclosed by the record on this appeal are, in substance, the same as those which were before the court on the former appeal; and the propositions of law there decided are therefore the law of this case, and we are not at liberty to reconsider them. It is true that nothing that was said in that opinion as to the facts could bind the court below upon the second trial, nor be conclusive now, since the rule of the law of the case has no application to questions of fact. But the evidence on the last trial appears to us to be without any material conflict, and indeed without any conflict whatever, nor can there be any question as to the inferences to be drawn from it, and it discloses a state of facts precisely the same as that on which the former decision was based. The legal effect of those facts was determined by that decision, and the case must now be determined accordingly.
The argument of respondent is practically confined to a restatement of the points discussed on the former appeal, and does not disclose any material particular in which the evidence differs from that on the former trial. Some points are suggested, as to which it is [166]
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)