Frixen v. Castro
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Twentieth District Court, County of Santa Clara. Beldeh, J. The complaint as amended contained two counts, the first of which alleged that the defendants “ promised and agreed to sell and convey to the plaintiff, etc.;” and the second, that the defendants “promised and agreed in writing to sell and convey to the plaintiff.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Twentieth District Court, County of Santa Clara. Beldeh, J. The complaint as amended contained two counts, the first of which alleged that the defendants “ promised and agreed to sell and convey to the plaintiff, etc.;” and the second, that the defendants “promised and agreed in writing to sell and convey to the plaintiff.” The first count also alleged that “ plaintiff took possession of said premises immediately after said agreement was made, and has ever since retained the exclusive possession thereof.” In other respects, both counts were…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court:
It is essential that the plaintiff’s pleadings show a readiness and willingness on his part to pay the balance of the purchase *443price for the land which he seeks to compel the defendant to convey to him. (Fry on Spec. Per., § 608; Waterman on Spec. Per., § 96.) In the complaint in this case as amended, there is no such showing.
The complaint is also defective, to say the least, in the averments respecting part performance.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint as amended, with leave to the plaintiff to amend in such particulars as…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dorris v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891