Glassell v. Coleman

29 P. 508, 94 Cal. 260, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 673
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedApril 2, 1892
DocketNo. 14277
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 29 P. 508 (Glassell v. Coleman) 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
Glassell v. Coleman, 29 P. 508, 94 Cal. 260, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 673 (Cal. 1892).

Opinion

Harrison, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant Wilson entered into an agreement, bearing date September 1, 1888, by which the plaintiff agreed to sell and Wilson to purchase a tract of land in Los Angeles County for the sum of one hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars, payable in installments, of which the second, of fifty thousand dollars, was to be paid on or before ten years from the date of the agreement, and the third, of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, on or before fifteen years from said date. Said installments were to bear interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, payable yearly; but it was provided that of said interest Wilson need pay only one thousand dollars for the first year, and only three thousand dollars for each of the second and third years. Other provisions not necessary to be mentioned here were made in the contract in reference to the payment by Wilson of interest and taxes, and for the expenditure by him of money in improving the land, and its subdivision and sale in parcel’s. The agreement provided that a writing, “ somewhat in the form of a promissory note,” should be executed by Wilson, “ expressing the terms of the obligation as to the payment of the second and third installments,” separate from and in addition to the contract, as “an additional evidence” of such obligation; [263]*263and in pursuance of this clause, Wilson executed to the plaintiff the following instrument: —

“ Los Angeles, Cal., September 1, 1888.

“ This obligation witnesseth as follows: On or before ten (10) years after this date, for value received, I promise to pay to Andrew Glassell of this city, or order, at this city, the principal sum of fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars; and also on or before fifteen years after this date, for value received, I promise to pay to said Glassell, or order, at said city, the further principal sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand ($125,000) dollars, with interest on both sums from date until paid, at the rate of six per cent (6 per cent) per annum; interest to be paid yearly, except as hereby modified, to wit, for the first year, only one thousand ($1,000) dollars of the accruing interest on said two sums shall be required to be paid within that year [other provisions relating to the payment of interest omitted]. If default be made at any time for the space of six months in the payment of the interest as herein provided, the whole principal sums shall thereupon become due, at the option of Glassell. This note is given as an additional security fox the payment of the second and third installments, of purchase price, payable as per contract between the parties hereto of the same date herewith for sale, etc., of land in Los Angeles County, California, and any and all payments made by said Wilson to said Glassell on said second and third installments, as required by said contract, shall be considered for all intents and purposes as credits upon this obligation.”

At the same time the respondents herein executed to the plaintiff their obligation, written upon the same sheet of paper, and immediately after the above obligation of Wilson, as follows, to wit: — [264]*264rate of six per cent (6 per cent) per year from the date of this note, or from the date of the last payment of the accrued interest on this note, if any such payments of interest shall be made; the payments of said twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars, and interest thereon, however, to be made only in the event that the within-mentioned Glassell shall have the right to resort to this note and these guarantors by reason of the failure of the within-mentioned H. T. D. Wilson to comply with his obligation, as expressed in the contract, for the purchase and sale of land between him and said Glassell, of even date with this note, and therein referred to, and of the forfeiture consequent upon such failure.”

[263]*263“ For value received, the undersigned jointly and severally guarantee the payment of this note according to its terms and conditions, but only to the extent of the sum of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars, and interest on said twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars at the

[264]*264The agreement between the plaintiff and Wilson provided that the plaintiff should convey the land to Wilson upon his payment of the entire purchase price of the whole tract, and performance of the other obligations assumed by him, and contained also the following clause: “ It is further agreed that time is of the essence of this contract, and in the event of a failure to comply with the terms hereof by the said party of the second part, the party of the first part shall be released from all obligations in law or equity to convey said property, and said party of the second part shall forfeit all right thereto, and to all moneys, promissory notes, or other considerations therefor, paid or delivered to said first party under this contract, .... and said first party shall especially have the right to retain and own .... the above-mentioned written money obligation of the said second party to the said first party for the payment of the principal and interest of said second and third installments referred to in the contract, and designated second and third installment note, together wdth the right to enforce the collection thereof as against said Wilson and the guarantors on said note, but only to the extent as expressed in the guaranty indorsed on said note.”

The plaintiff and the defendants herein had made an agreement in September, 1887, for the purchase and sale [265]*265of the said tract of land at a much higher price, but owing to the collapse of the “ boom ” during that year, the vendees thereunder were desirous of being released from its obligations, and as the result of negotiation therefor between them and the plaintiff, he executed to them a full release and discharge therefrom; and at the same time, in consideration thereof, the foregoing instruments were executed by the defendants as a substitute for the agreement of 1887.

Wilson failed to make the expenditures agreed by him, or to pay the taxes on the land, or any of the interest provided by the installment note, and the plaintiff, on the 10th of September, 1889, and again, January 20, 1'890, gave him a written notice in the following terms: “ I have elected and do elect to claim and insist, and do hereby claim and insist, on the absolute forfeiture of all your interests, claims, and rights mentioned in or provided for in said contract, and you are especially notified that I now claim to be released from all obligations in law or equity to convey the real property mentioned in said contract, and that I claim that you have forfeited all right thereto, and to all moneys, promissory notes, and considerations therefor or for said contract paid or delivered to me under or pursuant to said contract, and that I retain and have and claim absolutely all the rights, property, and privileges provided for in said contract for my benefit in the event of your complete forfeiture therein provided for.”

The plaintiff also, upon the expiration of six months from and after the said September 1, 1889,” notified Wilson that he chose and elected to consider the whole of the principal sums named in the installment note as immediately due and payable.

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

Related

Illini Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Childers
411 N.E.2d 110 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1980)
Nemec v. Rollo
562 P.2d 1087 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1977)
United States Leasing Corp. v. duPont
444 P.2d 65 (California Supreme Court, 1968)
Hollypark Realty Co. v. MacLoane
329 P.2d 532 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
In re Orpheum Circuit, Inc.
23 F. Supp. 727 (S.D. New York, 1938)
Beck v. Shepherd Fruit Co., Inc.
66 P.2d 188 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Hart, Schaffner & Marx v. Vaughn
62 P.2d 377 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
California Raisin Pool v. Balian
34 P.2d 227 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Bramwell Inv. Co. v. Uggla Et Ux.
16 P.2d 913 (Utah Supreme Court, 1932)
Adamczik v. McCauley
297 P. 486 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
Yakoobian v. Johnson
282 P. 522 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Frankel v. Rosenfield
273 P. 122 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Hovsepian v. Eskender
231 P. 364 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Roullard v. Rosenberg Bros. Co.
224 P. 449 (California Supreme Court, 1924)
Dishian v. Kishishian
221 P. 669 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Portner v. Tanner
216 P. 1069 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1923)
Garfield v. Ford
214 P. 963 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
City National Bank v. Lemco Manufacturing Co.
207 P. 509 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Stephenson v. Neppel
192 Iowa 246 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)
Security State Bank v. Krach
161 N.W. 568 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 P. 508, 94 Cal. 260, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glassell-v-coleman-cal-1892.