Ward v. Yorba

CHIPMAN, C. Action to reform a contract of sale and purchase of a certain parcel of land situated in the city of Los Angeles, and to specifically enforce the same whén reformed, and for damages. The pleadings are verified. Plaintiff had judgment from which, and from the order denying a new trial, defendant appeals upon a statement of the case. The findings are quite lengthy, but the salient facts may be briefly summarized as follows: The premises in controversy originally belonged to one Francisca D. de Labraceo, and both plaintiff and defendant claim title through this common source—plaintiff by sale on execution to one Jarvis (who conveyed to plaintiff) at suit of one Bacon; and defendant by attachment proceedings at his own suit. Plaintiff’s deed took effect as of date March 31, 1892, and defendant’s March 5, 1892, by relation. The validity of defendant’s attachment proceedings was in dispute at all the times mentioned in the findings. The property involved was worth $9,000. A suit was pending against Labraceo, in which one Javier Yorba and one Davilla were plaintiffs, wherein it was claimed that Labraceo was trustee of the title for plaintiffs in that suit; but it was found that defendant had knowledge of this action, and claimed to be able to control it. There was also a judgment lien for $312.75 on the property, of which defendant had full knowledge at the time he entered into the contract, the subject of the controversy. Plaintiff was in possession under his deed, and on February 10, 1893, the parties began negotiations looking to the sale by plaintiff and the purchase by defendant of plaintiff’s interest in said property for the sum of $6,000, at which time both plaintiff and defendant believed defendant’s attachment lien to be subordinate to the judgment lien through which plaintiff claimed title. On [103]February 24, 1893, a controversy arose between the parties as to their respective claims, the defendant claiming that his right was superior to plaintiff’s; and on that day defendant offered to sell his interest to plaintiff for $1,300 (the amount of his judgment in the attachment), or he would pay plaintiff $4,750 for his interest in the property, which latter proposition plaintiff accepted, and a written agreement was accordingly on that day entered into; but by mistake the agreement was drawn so as to obligate plaintiff to convey a good and perfect title, whereas the agreement was that he should convey only his interest in the property. Defendant knew all the facts relating to the title at the time the agreement was entered into, and was acting upon the advice of counsel then present. Defendant agreed to pay $100 cash in hand, which was done, and $4,650 in thirty days, which he failed to do. The consideration to defendant was plaintiff’s compromise of his claim of superior title, dependent upon defendant’s imperfect attachment proceeding mainly. The court, as conclusion of law, found that plaintiff was entitled to judgment (1) reforming the contract as prayed for, and (2) for the sum of $4,650, with interest at seven per cent per annum from March 24, 1893, amounting in all to $5,789.25, and for costs of suit; and judgment was accordingly entered. Appellant relies upon the written contract, which it is conceded respondent cannot perform. Respondent claims that he can perform the actual agreement, and stands ready to do so. We do not understand appellant to dispute that the findings support the judgment, but his contention is that the evidence does not support the findings. We assume that the points relied upon are those presented in the briefs of respective counsel.