Bozeman v. Curtis

California Court of Appeal

Bozeman v. Curtis

291 P. 870, 108 Cal. App. 648, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 266

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 30, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7245.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 P. 870 (Bozeman v. Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bozeman v. Curtis, 291 P. 870, 108 Cal. App. 648, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 266 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

The vendees, under a written contract for the sale of real property, were in default in their payments. Vendor, who was not in default, gave them written notice that the contract was terminated and that payments theretofore made were held forfeited under terms of contract. Vendees sued for payments made. Appeal taken on judgment-roll.

*649 Held—Where the vendee is in default and the vendor is not, the latter is not liable for the purchase money unless there has been a mutual rescission of the contract. (Glock v. Howard, 123 Cal. 1, 10 [69 Am. St. Rep. 17, 43 L. R. A. 199, 55 Pac. 713]; Lemle v. Barry, 181 Cal. 6, 10 [183 Pac. 148], and cases there cited.)

The notice of termination was not a notice of rescission because it expressly declared that the payments made would be held forfeited in accordance with the contract. Rescission is itself a contract subject to the same rules of interpretation. An essential element is intent. Here the notice negatives intent to rescind. (Hyman v. Harbor View Land Co., 46 Cal. App. 98, 107 [188 Pac. 828]; Catterline v. Peterson, 60 Cal. App. 617, 620 [213 Pac. 515]; Pinkerton v. Morton, 63 Cal. App. 471, 473 [218 Pac. 770].)

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

NOURSE, P. J.

The vendees, under a written contract for the sale of real property, were in default in their payments. Vendor, who was not in default, gave them written notice that the contract was terminated and that payments theretofore made were held forfeited under terms of contract. Vendees sued for payments made. Appeal taken on judgment-roll.

*649 Held—Where the vendee is in default and the vendor is not, the latter is not liable for the purchase money unless there has been a mutual rescission of the contract. (Glock v. Howard, 123 Cal. 1, 10 [69 Am. St. Rep. 17, 43 L. R. A. 199, 55 Pac. 713]; Lemle v. Barry, 181 Cal. 6, 10 [183 Pac. 148], and cases there cited.)

The notice of termination was not a notice of rescission because it expressly declared that the payments made would be held forfeited in accordance with the contract. Rescission is itself a contract subject to the same rules of interpretation. An essential element is intent. Here the notice negatives intent to rescind. (Hyman v. Harbor View Land Co., 46 Cal. App. 98, 107 [188 Pac. 828]; Catterline v. Peterson, 60 Cal. App. 617, 620 [213 Pac. 515]; Pinkerton v. Morton, 63 Cal. App. 471, 473 [218 Pac. 770].)

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 P. 870, 108 Cal. App. 648, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bozeman-v-curtis-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack