Murphey

Murphey v. Smith

Good Law
15 Cal. Rptr. 285·194 Cal. App. 2d 857·1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1888
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 18, 1961Civ. 19582California590 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shoemaker, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying specific performance of an alleged contract to convey real property.

Emilie Smith, Emma Johnson and Lucille Morgan were sisters. Catherine McCauley, Lucy Hogan and Grace Sartor were their nieces. Each was the owner of an undivided interest in an eleven acre piece of property in Livermore, California. The property came to these persons from the estate of the deceased sister and aunt, Adele Colldeweih. Emilie Smith managed the property on behalf of all the owners and on being approached by real estate brokers concerning a possible sale of the property, she gave them permission to put “for sale” signs on it, advising the brokers at the time that there were six eoowners of the parcel and that all of them would have to consent to any sale.

On January 22, 1959, Joseph L. Murphey and his wife, Ethel, called upon Emilie Smith and Emma Johnson at their home. Lucille Morgan, the third sister, was also present. The Murpheys had seen the “for sale” signs and looked up Emilie’s address and by phone made the appointment. As a result of this and a subsequent meeting, the Murpheys wound up with a deposit receipt with respect to the sale of the property,…

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.