Hill v. Den
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Obal Contract fob Lands—Statute of Fbauds—Paet Performance.—An oral contract for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein, is invalid under the statute of frauds; but where there has been a part performance thereof, its specific performance will be compelled by a court of equity.
In.—Sale of Life Estate—Services—Possession—Notice to Grantee— Specific Pf.rformance.—Where services were rendered by a married woman under an oral agreement with her employer that in consideration for such services he would deed certain lands to her and her husband as a home during their lives, and the contract was fully performed on her part, and partly performed on the part of the employer by surrendering the possession and control of the lands to her and her husband, she could demand and enforce a specific performance of the contract as against the employer and as against his grantee, who must be deemed to have taken with notice of the rights of the possessors.
Id.—Action for Value of Services—Surrender of Possession.—Where the purchaser under a verbal contract for land has been put in possession and has rendered services in payment of the price, no action will lie to recover the value of the services, without first surrendering possession of the land; and where possession was retained when such action was commenced, the action cannot be aided by a subsequent offer to restore the possession.
In.—Maintenance of Action—Supplemental Complaint.—An action cannot be maintained unless the cause of action existed at the time the action was commenced; and if a party has no cause of action at the time of its commencement, he cannot maintain it by filing a supplemental complaint founded upon matters which have subsequently occurred.
BELCHER, C. This is an action to recover the alleged reasonable value of certain services performed by plaintiff’s wife, Maria Angustias Hill, for defendant. The defendant had judgment, and the plaintiff appeals on the judgment-roll.
[43]The facts of the case, as disclosed by the findings of the court or admitted by the pleadings, are as follows: On or about the eighteenth day of April, 1894, defendant requested Mrs. Hill, plaintiff’s wife, to come to his, defendant’s, house, and take care of him and do the necessary work about and in the house, and agreed that he would support and maintain her while she so remained, and when he should get married he would deed to her and her husband a home during their lives, designating certain realty in the city of Santa Barbara as the property to be so conveyed.
Under said promise Mrs. Hill and her husband went to defendant’s house and remained there until defendant got married on December 30, 1895, and while so remaining did the work and services there to be performed under said promise and agreement; and her services were worth fifty dollars per month while she remained in his service, to wit, from April 18, 1894, to December 30, 1895.
After defendant’s marriage he placed Mrs. Hill and husband in possession of the premises agreed upon between him and her, where they remained peaceably and without interference from defendant, or any one acting under him or as his successor, until after plaintiff commenced this action, when, defendant having given them no deed of the premises, they voluntarily surrendered the possession thereof.
After plaintiff and his wife entered into possession of said property, and before the commencement of this action, defendant conveyed to his wife, in consideration of love and affection, all the real property which he possessed in Santa Barbara county, the deed being dated, acknowledged, and recorded on January 34, 1896, and there has been no reconveyance to defendant of the whole or any part of the property so conveyed.
Defendant has not failed to fulfill his promise and carry cut his contract except as before stated, and the execution of the deed by defendant to his wife as shown by the pleadings did not prevent him from carrying out his contract.
After the execution by defendant of the deed to his wife, plaintiff’s wife demanded of defendant a deed, and he replied that his wife knew all about his arrangement with her, Mrs. Hill, and they would fix it up, and that Thomas McHulta, his attorney, had the deed.
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)