Thurber v. Meves
Before: Beatty, Fleet
Synopsis
Specific Performance—Mutuality of Remedy.—While it is a general rule that mutuality oí remedy is essential to authorize the specific performance of a contract, this rule does not require that such mutuality shall exist in all cases at the inception of the transaction.
Id.—Contract for Personal Services.—A contract for the conveyance of land, in consideration of personal services to be performed by the vendee, may be specifically enforced at the instance of the latter, after such services have been fully or substantially performed.
Id.—Contract for Sale as Security for Loan—Equitable Mortgage— Time of Payment.—Where, after the making of a contract for the sale of land, in consideration of personal services to be performed by the vendee, the latter borrows a sum of money from the vendor, to be repaid at a particular date, and to secure the payment thereof agrees that the contract for sale should be held as security for the payment of the loan, and that the right to the conveyance should be dependent upon the payment thereof at the times and in the manner mentioned in the contract of loan, in addition to the other conditions precedent to the conveyance, such second agreement is in the nature of a mere equitable mortgage to secure the payment of the loan, and as its purpose could not be defeated by a mere failure to pay in accordance with its terms, a failure to pay on the day specified would not defeat the vendee’s right to a specific performance of the contract for sale.
Opinion — Fleet
VAN FLEET, J. January 1, 1883, plaintiff made a contract in writing with Otto Heves, under which Heves entered into the immediate possession of a tract of about forty acres of land belonging to plaintiff, the whole of which available for the purpose Heves was to clear up and cultivate to such fruit trees, grape vines and small fruit plants as should be furnished for the purpose by plaintiff—a certain acreage to be cleared and set out each year during the period of four years; and under which contract Heves was to erect certain fences and open up a certain private way or road; in consideration of which services plaintiff was to convey to Heves on January 1, 1888, the title to the north half of said premises.
On Harch 10, 1884, Heves borrowed of plaintiff one hundred and fifty dollars, for which he gave his promissory note payable two years from date, with interest at one per cent per month, payable quarterly, and to secure payment of which he gave plaintiff a writing which referred to the first mentioned contract, and provided that said contract should be held as'security for payment of the note, and making the right to the conveyance therein provided for, “dependent upon the payment thereof at the times and in the manner mentioned in said promissory note, in addition to the other conditions precedent to said conveyance.”
August 14, 1889, Heves died, and Harch 10, 1890, plaintiff brought this action against these defendants, the heirs of Heves, to quiet title to the north half of the land described in said first-mentioned contract, then held and occupied by defendants, and to acquire possession thereof.
In a cross-complaint the defendants set up the contracts between their ancestor and plaintiff above referred to, alleged a compliance with the terms of the first, except to a partial extent wherein compliance was prevented by certain acts of plaintiff, a tender of payment of said note and willingness and readiness to pay any amount found due thereon, and prayed that plaintiff be [37]decreed to convey to them the portion of land stipulated in said contract. The court below found the facts in all material respects as alleged in the cross-complaint, except as to the alleged tender of payment of the note, and made a decree wherein plaintiff is required to convey the land to defendants upon payment by the latter, within sixty days, of the amount of said note and accrued interest.
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)