Bart v. Streuli

California Supreme Court

Bart v. Streuli

52 P.2d 922, 5 Cal. 2d 67, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 624

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1935

DocketL. A. 15537

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 P.2d 922 (Bart v. Streuli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bart v. Streuli, 52 P.2d 922, 5 Cal. 2d 67, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 624 (Cal. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal or affirm the judgment in the above-entitled cause. Plaintiff sold real property to defendants, taking back a purchase money mortgage for $1600. The mortgage contained the usual provisions against removal or demolition of any building, and required that the defendants cultivate, fertilize and prune the growing trees. Plaintiff brought this action to fore *68 close, alleging breach of the above covenants. The trial court found that defendants removed the front porch, as .part of a scheme of' improvement which enhanced the value of the premises by $500, and that although defendants did not cultivate, fertilize or prune, the trees did not require any attention and were in no way diminished in value by lack of attention. Judgment was accordingly rendered for defendants and plaintiff appealed.

It is clear that plaintiff was not injured in any way, and was in fact benefited by defendants’ acts. Under the circumstances the court had power to relieve against the effect of any technical violation of covenants in the mortgage. (Ebbert v. Mercantile Trust Co., 213 Cal. 496 [2 Pac. (2d) 776].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal or affirm the judgment in the above-entitled cause. Plaintiff sold real property to defendants, taking back a purchase money mortgage for $1600. The mortgage contained the usual provisions against removal or demolition of any building, and required that the defendants cultivate, fertilize and prune the growing trees. Plaintiff brought this action to fore *68 close, alleging breach of the above covenants. The trial court found that defendants removed the front porch, as .part of a scheme of' improvement which enhanced the value of the premises by $500, and that although defendants did not cultivate, fertilize or prune, the trees did not require any attention and were in no way diminished in value by lack of attention. Judgment was accordingly rendered for defendants and plaintiff appealed.

It is clear that plaintiff was not injured in any way, and was in fact benefited by defendants’ acts. Under the circumstances the court had power to relieve against the effect of any technical violation of covenants in the mortgage. (Ebbert v. Mercantile Trust Co., 213 Cal. 496 [2 Pac. (2d) 776].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 P.2d 922, 5 Cal. 2d 67, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bart-v-streuli-cal-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack