Wilson

Wilson v. Rosenkranz

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 511·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1130·297 P. 44
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 1931Docket No. 7675.California853 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gray, J.

Vrena A. Rosenkranz gave to appellant, upon terms therein expressed, an exclusive option to purchase her real property “free and clear of encumbrance”. After her failure to perform, upon the exercise of his option, appellant, alleging she acted in bad faith, sued to recover under section 3306 of the Civil Code “the difference between the price agreed to be paid and the value of the estate agreed to be conveyed, at the time of the breach”. As J. A. Rosenkranz was joined as a party solely because of marriage, he will be eliminated from this discussion and Vrena A. Rosenkranz considered as the sole respondent. •

Appellant seeks a reversal of the judgment in favor of respondent because of (1) the alleged erroneous admission of testimony as to conversations between respondent and appellant’s agent at and prior to the execution of the option, and (2) alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that respondent did not act in bad faith. Overruling appellant’s objection that such testimony attempted to vary the terms of the written option, which obligated respondent to convey title “free and clear of encumbrance”, the court admitted, solely on the issue of bad faith,…

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.