Bird

Bird v. Potter

Good Law
146 Cal. 286·1905 Cal. LEXIS 523·79 P. 970
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 1905L.A. No. 1591.California1,119 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cooper, J.

This action was brought to enforce specific performance of a written contract for the sale of real estate. The court filed findings upon which judgment was entered for plaintiff. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and now prosecutes this appeal from the order denying his motion. He claims that the evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment and decision, and that certain errors of law occurred during the trial to his prejudice.

The contract upon which the action depends is as follows:—

The name of the owner, Thomas McD. Potter, was signed to the contract after it had been first signed by his agent, W. I. Hollingsworth & Co. The five dollars was paid by plaintiff at the time the writing was given to him.

It is claimed by appellant that he never received an adequate consideration for the contract; that it was not binding upon plaintiff, because he did not agree to pay the $450 for the lot, and hence, the contract not being mutual, cannot be enforced in a court of equity. The claim is without merit. The contract is in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged, describes the land to be conveyed, and names the consideration for which defendant…

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.