Evarts v. Johnston
California Supreme Court
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
- Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Sands v. Eagle Oil & Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- Dore v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Haddock v. KnappCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Foley v. CowanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.