Luft

Luft v. Arakelian

Good Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 285·33 Cal. App. 463·165 P. 712·165 P.2d 712
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 19, 1917Civ. No. 2036.California688 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lennon, J.

In this action the plaintiff sought to compel the defendants to specifically perform a certain contract for the purchase and sale of real estate which had been entered into by the plaintiff with a third party named Klein who, it appears, was doing business under the name of the “New York Real Estate and Building Company.”

The plaintiff’s cause of action proceeded upon the theory that Klein was not the owner of the property purchased, but was the agent of the defendants in the transaction in suit. The trial court, however, found that Klein, when executing the contract in suit, was acting for himself and not as the agent of the defendants. This finding supports the judgment entered in favor of the defendants, which in turn finds ample support in the evidence adduced upon the whole case, which in substance is as follows: The defendants are husband and wife. The wife apparently had no relation to the contract in controversy, and was in no way interested in the property save as the wife of the defendant Krikor H. Arakelian. Therefore in this opinion we shall deal only with the husband, and shall refer to him as the defendant.

The real property which was the subject of the contract in…

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.