Wolf

Wolf v. Price

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1557·244 Cal. App. 2d 165·52 Cal. Rptr. 889·25 Oil & Gas Rep. 272
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 1966Civ. 30029California3,158 words

Opinion

Opinion

Roth, J.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of respondents. The only issue is whether there are any triable issues of fact.

Appellants, husband and wife, filed their action for breach of a contract by respondents to purchase certain property on Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles. The contract is evidenced by escrow instructions entered into by appellants and the respondent Price as the nominal purchaser. The other respondents were Price’s nominees. All respondents answered. The respondents Oscar Topper, Irwin Topper and Harry Groman, partners in the respondent Vermont-Browning Company, here for convenience referred to as the partnership, denied that they had entered into the contract alleged in the complaint or any other contract, and denied that Price had assigned to them his interest in the escrow, or that they accepted any such assignment. Respondents counterclaimed for the recovery of $1,500 paid to appellants out of escrow.

Respondents’ motion for summary judgment was granted. A judgment was entered dismissing appellants’ complaint and in favor of Price for $1,500, with costs to all respondents. Appellants ’ motions to set aside the judgment, for a new trial and for leave…

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.