DeMartini

DeMartini v. Lamb

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 2d 587·1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1870·340 P.2d 1041
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1959Civ. No. 18382; Civ. No. 18781California1,127 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kaufman, J.

We are here concerned with two proceedings arising out of the same transaction between the parties and concerning the same question. In the first, Number 18382, defendant Elizabeth Lamb (also known as Phyllis K. Lamb and Elizabeth Kent) appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, DeMartini Brothers, in an action for declaratory relief. The second proceeding, Number 18781, relates to the trial of an action for unlawful detainer, filed by the plaintiffs, which we temporarily restrained by an alternative writ of prohibition. We will first dispose of the appeal, which is confined to certain alleged errors and inconsistencies in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In 1955, Elizabeth and her husband Arthur Lamb, owned several parcels of real property in Mill Valley, California, hereinafter referred to as the Bolsa Avenue property and the Oakdale Avenue property. In August 1955, the plaintiffs, who are licensed contractors, and the defendants entered into an oral agreement for the construction of a residence on the Bolsa Avenue property. There was a construction loan on the properties, but plaintiffs did not receive sufficient funds to continue construction and pay the…

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.