Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Evarts v. Johnston

California Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1949No. L. A. 20591Published

1ConcurrenceSpence, J.

I concur in the judgment. Regardless of the question of whether plaintiffs were entitled to the claimed credit of $700, the judgment in favor of defendants must be affirmed for the reason that plaintiffs failed to make out a case for specific performance.

*10It is well settled that a person is not entitled to specific performance in the absence of pleading and proof that the contract is just and reasonable, and that the consideration is adequate. (Civ. Code, § 3391; Haddock v. Knapp, 171 Cal. 59, 62 [151 P. 1140]; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co., 163 Cal. 182, 196 [124 P. 817]; Quann v. Kraseman, 84…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Sands v. Eagle Oil & Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Dore v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Haddock v. KnappCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Foley v. CowanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API