Reading v. Marr Estates, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Reading v. Marr Estates, Inc.

14 P.2d 795, 126 Cal. App. 605, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 612

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 5, 1932

DocketDocket No. 8658.

StatusPublished

This text of 14 P.2d 795 (Reading v. Marr Estates, Inc.) 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

Reading v. Marr Estates, Inc., 14 P.2d 795, 126 Cal. App. 605, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced, an action against the defendant to obtain relief by reason of alleged fraud practiced on her in a transaction involving the purchase of certain real estate. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed and has brought up a transcript containing the judgment-roll alone.

The defendant asserts that a vendor is not in default until he has failed to perform after a demand for performance. The contention, under the record presented, is immaterial. In the first place it assumes that the action is one based on contract, whereas the complaint sounds in tort. In the second place the judgment-roll does not disclose whether a demand was or was not made. When an appeal is based on the judgment-roll we must assume that all of the findings were supported by the evidence introduced at the trial.

It is next contended that the vendor’s delivery and the vendee’s acceptance of the erroneous deed did not excuse the necessity of demand for performance. Our reply to the first contention is a complete reply to this one also.

It is next asserted that if the delivery of the erroneous deed was performance of the contract, the vendee has no right to recover the purchase money. The point is axiomatic; however, it is not addressed to the record before us. In effect the trial court found that the erroneous deed was delivered fraudulently and for that reason it rendered its judgment against the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced, an action against the defendant to obtain relief by reason of alleged fraud practiced on her in a transaction involving the purchase of certain real estate. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed and has brought up a transcript containing the judgment-roll alone.

The defendant asserts that a vendor is not in default until he has failed to perform after a demand for performance. The contention, under the record presented, is immaterial. In the first place it assumes that the action is one based on contract, whereas the complaint sounds in tort. In the second place the judgment-roll does not disclose whether a demand was or was not made. When an appeal is based on the judgment-roll we must assume that all of the findings were supported by the evidence introduced at the trial.

It is next contended that the vendor’s delivery and the vendee’s acceptance of the erroneous deed did not excuse the necessity of demand for performance. Our reply to the first contention is a complete reply to this one also.

It is next asserted that if the delivery of the erroneous deed was performance of the contract, the vendee has no right to recover the purchase money. The point is axiomatic; however, it is not addressed to the record before us. In effect the trial court found that the erroneous deed was delivered fraudulently and for that reason it rendered its judgment against the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 P.2d 795, 126 Cal. App. 605, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reading-v-marr-estates-inc-calctapp-1932.