Bullion

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment against him in an action for damages for refusal to execute a lease to a certain store in San Francisco, California.

The contract forming the basis of the action is as follows:

When plaintiff sought to introduce in evidence the foregoing instrument, it was objected to because of the ■indefiniteness of the description; the objection was sustained and later defendant’s motion for nonsuit was granted.

The only point involved upon the appeal is as to the sufficiency of the contract between the parties. The trial court based its conclusion upon the case of Rohan v. Proctor, 61 Cal. App. 447 [ 214 Pac. 986 ]. In that case the uncertainty had reference to the beginning of the term of the lease. As stated in the opinion, this uncertainty arose primarily out of the fact that alterations and improvements were to be made by the landlord before the tenant could enter into the occupation and beneficial use of the premises, and that the writing did not contain a definite description of what said improvements were to consist of nor did it contain a fixed date when such improvements were to be completed. The court stated that the landlord, having agreed to…