Cruz v. Mesa

D. Guam

Cruz v. Mesa

1 Guam 30

CourtDistrict Court, D. Guam

DecidedSeptember 15, 1958

DocketCivil No. 8-A

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Guam 30 (Cruz v. Mesa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cruz v. Mesa, 1 Guam 30 (gud 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

OPINION

The appellee, plaintiff below, brought this action against the appellant, defendant below, for specific performance of a contract to sell land. At the time the contract was made the land was part of a larger lot. The appellee caused a survey to be made of the land which was the subject of sale which survey included a right-of-way not included in the original sale.

The testimony showed that the survey was made after the appellant had pointed out the boundaries, including the right-of-way and that the appellant signed the survey map.

We agree that the appellee was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The appellant filed a cross-complaint which was not ruled upon by the trial court as should have been done. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment make it clear that the trial court had held against the allegations made in the cross-complaint and it would serve no useful purpose to remand solely for the purpose of dismissing it.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

OPINION

The appellee, plaintiff below, brought this action against the appellant, defendant below, for specific performance of a contract to sell land. At the time the contract was made the land was part of a larger lot. The appellee caused a survey to be made of the land which was the subject of sale which survey included a right-of-way not included in the original sale.

The testimony showed that the survey was made after the appellant had pointed out the boundaries, including the right-of-way and that the appellant signed the survey map.

We agree that the appellee was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The appellant filed a cross-complaint which was not ruled upon by the trial court as should have been done. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment make it clear that the trial court had held against the allegations made in the cross-complaint and it would serve no useful purpose to remand solely for the purpose of dismissing it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Guam 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-mesa-gud-1958.