Southall v. Security Title Ins. & Guarantee Co.

Decision Date21 July 1952
Citation112 Cal.App.2d 321,246 P.2d 74
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesSOUTHALL v. SECURITY TITLE INS. & GUARANTEE CO. Civ. 19015.

Ralph Bancroft, San Francisco, for appellant.

F. W. Audrian, Los Angeles, for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment entered after a demurrer was sustained to his amended complaint upon the stated ground that his cause of action was barred by the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff alleged that on December 3, 1947, he entered into a contract for the purchase of certain real property from William and James P. Bianchini as heirs-at-law of one Eugenio Bianchini and also as co-trustees of a trust established by the will of Eugenio Bianchini, and secured approval of the purchase from all of the beneficiaries of the trust. Plaintiff and the Bianchinis thereupon executed and delivered escrow instructions to defendant title company, a copy of the instructions being annexed to the amended complaint, and it is alleged, 'said defendant then and there covenanted and agreed to and with plaintiff for a valuable consideration that it, the said defendant, would carry out its obligations in accordance with the terms of said escrow agreement,' and the Bianchinis as trustees agreed to deliver to defendant 'papers required to vest title as designated in said escrow instructions'. Plaintiff further alleged 'That by the terms of said escrow defendant agreed that it would give plaintiff notice of facts within the knowledge of defendant which would prevent its compliance with said escrow instructions.'

The asserted breach of contract or duty by the defendant, as set forth in the amended complaint, is that on February 18, 1948, and on June 3, 1948, 'plaintiff wrote defendant asking for information as to the status of said escrow but received no reply thereto from said defendant. That on July 8th, 1948, defendant's title search was completed and the title to the property described in said escrow was found by defendant to be in order and that defendant was then in a position to transfer title to plaintiff; however, the said William Bianchini and James P. Bianchini, co-trustees, had not delivered to defendant the papers required to vest title in plaintiff as agreed by them in said escrow.'

Further, it was alleged that 'although repeatedly requested by plaintiff, both by letter and telephone, defendant at no time informed plaintiff that the papers required from the co-trustees to vest title in plaintiff had not been delivered to defendant and at no time did defendant inform plaintiff that the title search was completed and that defendant was able to procure a standard form Owners Policy of Title Insurance upon the delivery to it of the papers required from the co-trustees to vest title in plaintiff * * *'.

The resulting damage to plaintiff from the asserted dereliction of defendant is pleaded in the following language of the amended complaint:

'That by reason of the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 28 Agosto 1968
    ...decision and, unless at least one cause of action is clearly stated, sustain the order of dismissal. (Southall v. Security Title Ins. etc. Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 321, 323, 246 P.2d 74; Morris v. National Federation of the Blind, 192 Cal.App.2d 162, 164, 13 Cal.Rptr. 336.) We are constrained to......
  • Southern California Title Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 15 Junio 1967
    ...decision and, unless at least one cause of action is clearly stated, sustain the order of dismissal. (Southall v. Security Title Ins. Etc. Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 321, 323, 246 P.2d 74; Morris v. National Federation of the Blind, 192 Cal.App.2d 162, 164, 13 Cal.Rptr. 336.) We are constrained to......
  • Weinstock v. Eissler
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Enero 1964
    ...grounds urged is valid. (Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc., supra, 44 Cal.2d 416, 424, 282 P.2d 890; Southall v. Security Title Insurance etc. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 321, 323, 246 P.2d 74.) In the case before us, the trial court in apparent compliance with section 472d of the Code of Civil P......
  • Patent Scaffolding Co. v. William Simpson Const. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 Noviembre 1967
    ...not recoverable which are not causally connected with the breach of a contract. (Civ.Code, § 3300; Southall v. Security Title Ins., etc., Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 321, 323--324, 246 P.2d 74.) Insurers' Equitable Subrogation The fact alone that Patent could not recover from Simpson because ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT