Tuffin

Tuffin v. Warfield

Good Law
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 358·72 Cal. App. 282·237 P. 64
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 15, 1925Docket No. 2862.California1,832 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Jones, J.

On December 15, 1920, the appellants and respondents entered into an agreement, by the terms of which the respondents agreed to sell to the appellants, and the latter agreed to buy certain farm land situate in El Dorado County, for the sum of $7,500, of which amount $2,000 was paid on the execution of the agreement and the balance was to be paid upon the execution and delivery of the deed. The vendees, it was agreed, should have im mediate possession of the premises and if the vendors failed to give a good and sufficient title, the vendees should be permitted to remain on the land for the period of one year from the date of the agreement and to take the proceeds of the farm as compensation for their services and loss of time in cultivating and caring for the premises.

It was further “agreed that certain landmarks used in the description of said property have been obliterated by the lapse of time and it is necessary that the said property shall be re-surveyed and that thereafter a suit to quiet title be instituted for the purpose of decreeing the title vested in said vendors, and for that purpose the parties hereto agree to equally share said expenses. That in event said suit…

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.