Crum

Crum v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 508·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 34·294 P. 430
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 17, 1930Docket No. 117.California3,011 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cart, J.

Plaintiffs began this action to recover from defendants the balance due on the purchase price of certain property. The complaint gave defendants credit for a down payment of $400 and claimed that the balance of $39,837.67 was unpaid. The answer admitted the allegations of the complaint, other than the nonpayment of the purchase price, and set up full payment as an affirmative defense. The court found that the allegations of the complaint were true, except as to the amount still unpaid, gave defendants credit for a further payment of $7,823.99 and gave judgment for plaintiffs for the balance—$32,013.61.

As grounds for reversal, defendants contend (1) that the evidence does not support the finding of nonpayment, (2) that the finding that $7,823.99 was a pro tanto payment entitled defendants, as a matter of law, to a further finding that the entire amount had been paid and (3) that the court committed prejudicial error (a) in refusing to find as requested by defendants, that plaintiffs had both authorized and ratified certain acts of their alleged agent in receiving the balance of the purchase price and (b) in refusing to find that plaintiffs are estopped to dispute the authority of…

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.