Gallagher v. Mars
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 1st day of November, 1869, the plaintiff sold defendant Mars a lot on Jessie street, in San Francisco, for $2200, and executed to him a conveyance, which was recorded. There was a verbal agreement that the vendee should pay the purchase-price when demanded by the vendor, and that if he did not so pay it, he should reconvey the lot to the vendor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 1st day of November, 1869, the plaintiff sold defendant Mars a lot on Jessie street, in San Francisco, for $2200, and executed to him a conveyance, which was recorded. There was a verbal agreement that the vendee should pay the purchase-price when demanded by the vendor, and that if he did not so pay it, he should reconvey the lot to the vendor. The plaintiff retained possession of the property through his tenant and received the rents. In 1873, Mars became insolvent, and defendants Hitchcock…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The alleged agreement on the part of defendant to reconvey the land was void under the Statute of Frauds. The case is one, therefore, in which the plaintiff sold and conveyed the lands to defendant, the latter to pay the purchase-price *26on demand; and as the bringing of this equitable action was a sufficient demand, the plaintiff is entitled to have his vendor’s lien declared and enforced. (Leman v. Whitley, 4 Russell’s Ch. 423.)
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Barr v. O'DonnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Wood v. WoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Spurlock v. WilsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Estate of Snook, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1897
- Spine & Neurosurgery Associates v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.District Court, E.D. California · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.