Lassiter v. California Trust Co.

California Court of Appeal

Lassiter v. California Trust Co.

20 P.2d 723, 131 Cal. App. 7

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 4, 1933

DocketDocket No. 7733.

StatusPublished

This text of 20 P.2d 723 (Lassiter v. California Trust Co.) 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

Lassiter v. California Trust Co., 20 P.2d 723, 131 Cal. App. 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, J.

Complainants ask a money judgment. The essential facts are as follows: Before the recording *8 of a plat of ground containing such property plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase two lots and paid a consideration thereon. After the recording of the plat two separate agreements were entered into between the parties, one for the purchase of one of the lots, the other for the purchase of the other. The consideration paid under the first agreement was applied upon the subsequent agreements. The complaint is for the return of the consideration paid under the first agreement. Defendant’s general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and judgment for defendant followed.

The first agreement was void and the parties themselves adjusted the matter. If authority is needed Letteau v. Dumas, 99 Cal. App. 230' [278 Pac. 459], supplies it.

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Arehbald, J., pro tern., concurred.

A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 1, 1933.

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

STEPHENS, J.

Complainants ask a money judgment. The essential facts are as follows: Before the recording *8 of a plat of ground containing such property plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase two lots and paid a consideration thereon. After the recording of the plat two separate agreements were entered into between the parties, one for the purchase of one of the lots, the other for the purchase of the other. The consideration paid under the first agreement was applied upon the subsequent agreements. The complaint is for the return of the consideration paid under the first agreement. Defendant’s general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and judgment for defendant followed.

The first agreement was void and the parties themselves adjusted the matter. If authority is needed Letteau v. Dumas, 99 Cal. App. 230' [278 Pac. 459], supplies it.

Judgment affirmed.

Works, P. J., and Arehbald, J., pro tern., concurred.

A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 1, 1933.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 P.2d 723, 131 Cal. App. 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lassiter-v-california-trust-co-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack