Torrence

Jackson v. Torrence

Caution
1890 Cal. LEXIS 720·83 Cal. 521·23 P. 695
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 1, 1890Nos. 13133 and 13175California4,858 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

The defendants are husband and wife, and the suit is to compel specific performance of the following agreement:—■

*524 The superior court found that the wife and the community owned separate interests in the premises, and made a decree compelling a conveyance by the husband of the community interest, upon payment of its estimated proportion of the agreed price, but refused a decree as to the interest of the wife, upon the ground that she, not having acknowledged her. execution of the contract to sell, was not bound by it.

The husband, in case No. 13133, appeals from the decree compelling him to convey, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs, in case No. 13175, appeal from so much of the decree as adjudges the wife to be the owner of a separate interest in the premises, and denies them any relief as against her.

Both appeals have been submitted, and will be considered together.

The facts upon which the controversy depends are as follows:—

The Capital Hotel, referred to in the contract, is a three-story building situated on lot 1, in block 2, of the town of Woodland. This lot is a rectangle, and fronts (south) sixty feet on Main Street, and (west)…

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.