Jedlicka

Pursuant to verdict of the jury, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs against defendant Atwell Land Company in the sum of $10,000 and against the defendant John W. Childress in the sum of $9,997, and against two other defendants in the sum of one dollar each. The corporation and Childress appeal from the judgment.

The alleged contract was fully set forth by copy in the complaint. On the face of the document it purported to be executed by the sellers, plaintiffs herein, and by the corporation by its president and secretary duly authorized so to do by resolution of the board of directors. The contract as executed bore the seal of the corporation. By the terms of the writing, dated August 16, 1921, the sellers *458 agreed to sell to the buyer certain described real property and the buyer agreed to purchase the same and pay therefor the sum of $87,500, of which total sum the buyer was to pay on September 1, 1922, $45,000 and the remainder in two equal installments payable respectively on September 1, 1923, and March 1, 1924, with interest as specified: “Provided, however, that no interest whatsoever shall be paid until September 1st, 1922, but during the existence of this…

On petition for rehearing. Petitioners are in error in their suggestion that this court held that at the date of the contract of August 16, 1921, B. M. Martin was not the owner of any stock in defendant corporation. *464 Implicitly it was admitted by the pleadings that Martin remained the owner of one share; in other words, Martin had owned 9,998 shares and had reserved one share from his pledge to Childress. The testimony of Martin confirms this fact.

The fact that the vendors at the time of making their contract with defendant corporation did not own the land, but had only those rights referred to in the decision herein, has not that supreme importance which has been insisted upon by appellants. Where a vendee contracts with one having none or an imperfect title, he contracts in the hope or expectation that the vendor may be able to perfect the title. (Brimmer v. Salisbury, 167 Cal. 522, 531 [ 140 Pac. 30 ]; Kerr v. Reed, 39 Cal. App. 11, 16 [ 179 Pac. 399 ].) In the absence of fraud or misrepresentation of any kind, such imperfection of title does not destroy the validity of the contract. Of course, it is true that on an installment contract, when the time arrives for making…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 457 Pursuant to verdict of the jury, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs against defendant Atwell Land Company in the sum of $10,000 and against the defendant John W. Childress in the sum of $9,997, and against two other defendants in the sum of one dollar each. The corporation and Childress appeal from the judgment. The alleged contract was fully set forth by copy in the complaint. On the face of the document it purported to be executed by the sellers, plaintiffs herein, and by the corporation by its president and secretary duly authorized so to do by resolution of the board of directors. The contract as executed bore the seal of the corporation. By the terms of the writing, dated August 16, 1921, the sellers *Page 458 agreed to sell to the buyer certain described real property and the buyer agreed to purchase the same and pay therefor the sum of $87,500, of which total sum the buyer was to pay on September 1, 1922, $45,000 and the remainder in two equal installments payable respectively on September 1, 1923, and March 1, 1924,…