Lorentz

United Truckmen, Inc. v. Lorentz

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 2d 26·1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1130·249 P.2d 352
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 3, 1952Civ. 15277California3,591 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bray, J.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for sale of real property, judgment went for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

Questions Pbesbnted

1. Was the description of the real property indefinite? 2. If so, was it so indefinite as to exclude the admission of parol evidence?

Pacts

Defendant Ernest Lorentz, Sr., agreed to sell and plaintiff to buy certain real property in Santa Clara County. The agreement was in the form of a “Deposit Receipt.” The property is described as “the following described property, situate in the County of Santa Clara, California: The southerly portion of that certain property being under the name of Ernest Lorentz Sr. and bounded on the East by South Tenth Street and on the South by the Western Pacific Railroad, being about 275 feet on South Tenth Street by approximately 500 feet deep, containing about 3 acres. . . . The total purchase price is Nine Thousand ($9,000.00) Dollars. . . .” The property belongs to both defendants as joint tenants. No point is made in the case that the agreement to sell was signed only by the husband. When the seller refused to go through with the sale, plaintiff sued both defendants for specific performance. At the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.