Norton

Norton v. Overholtzer

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 381·63 Cal. App. 388·218 P. 637
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 1923Civ. No. 4060.California2,412 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shenk, J.

This is an action in ejectment. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for restitution of the premises and for the value of the use and occupation thereof. Defendants have appealed.

The plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of real estate and the improvements thereon situated in the city of Pasadena. The complaint is in the usual form. In their answer the defendants assert a right of possession under an alleged contract of purchase and sale the terms of which will be hereinafter noted.

On the seventeenth day of July, 1919, the plaintiff executed and delivered to M. W. Davis the following written authorization:

Pursuant to the foregoing contract the defendants paid to Davis the sum of $25 on the date of its execution, went into possession, and paid $25 on the nineteenth days of October, November, and December, and on January 16, 1920, paid to Davis the sum of $1,000, which was the amount due on January 19th in the event the defendants did not desire to surrender the contract and vacate the premises.

The trial court decided that the contract of September 19th was not binding on the respondent for the reason that it was not within the scope of the written authority of…

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.