Acadia, California, Ltd., v. Herbert
| Decision Date | 12 January 1960 |
| Citation | 1 Cal.Rptr. 879 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ACADIA, CALIFORNIA, LTD., a California corporation, and Anthony Burke, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Montague HERBERT, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 5970. |
Gold, Needleman & Fain, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
Shaw & Barnett, Riverside, Slaughter, Schlesinger & Schlecht, and James M. Schlecht, Palm Springs, for respondents.
In 1946 the real estate involved in this action was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Hatton. They sold a portion of this property to Mr. and Mrs. Miller and another portion to the plaintiff, Anthony Burke. In connection with the sale to each of these parties there was executed an agreement for the furnishing of domestic water for which the purchasers agreed to pay. Among other things, it was agreed:
'(1) Grantors agree and hereby undertake to furnish to the Grantees such water as may be necessary for domestic use consisting generally of the usual household and domestic uses and the adequate watering of ornamental plants, trees and shrubs, and household garden plots connected with the use, occupancy and development of the property of the Grantees hereinabove described as a residence, but not for any industrial, commercial or general agricultural purposes, and in no event to exceed 1/50 of such water as may be available from the existing water well on the real property hereinabove described, or any replacement well in lieu of the existing well as hereinafter provided for.
'(2) It is contemplated by the parties hereto that said portions of the said available water, not to exceed 1/50 thereof, will be adequate for the uses hereinabove permitted by the Grantors, but Grantors make no guarantee concerning the quantity of water agreed to be furnished, or concerning the continuing availability thereof, except as hereinafter set forth.'
The property remaining in the name of the Hattons was sold and ultimately purchased by the defendant Herbert, who became responsible for the fulfillment of the contract. That portion of the property which was purchased by the Millers was ultimately conveyed to the plaintiff Acadia, California, Ltd., a corporation.
This litigation arose out of a dispute between the parties with reference to the interpretation of and the obligations of this contract. It was the claim of the defendant that the water which he was obligated to deliver pursuant to this contract was a maximum amount of 1/50th of the capacity of the well as it was equipped with pumping facilities at the time of the execution of the agreements. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the obligation was to deliver to each of them a maximum amount of 1/50th of the capacity of the well. At the time of the original contracts there had been installed upon the land of the defendant pipes for delivery of water to the properties of the plaintiffs and there had been from time to time some changes as to these facilities. Apparently the controversy between the parties become somewhat bitter and the defendant installed upon his property devices which would limit the flow of the water onto the lands of the plaintiffs to the amount to which he claimed they were entitled under the contract. There was a considerable difference in amount between the claims of the parties, and plaintiffs contended that the amounts which defendant conceded he was obligated to deliver and which he did deliver were inadequate for their requirements.
This litigation was the result this controversy. The claims of the plaintiffs are set forth in a second amended complaint in which each plaintiff sets forth his cause of action in 20 counts. The pleadings of the parties are similar. It is alleged, in substance, that the defendant is obligated to deliver water under the original water agreements which have been modified by several subsequent amendments. It is set forth that there exists a controversy between the parties with regard to the amount of water which defendant is obligated to deliver; the contentions of the parties in that regard are set forth and the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment establishing their rights and seek injunctive relief, both temporary and permanent, for the protection of the rights thereby established. In addition, it is set forth, in substance, that the defendant by the installation of devices has limited the flow of the water onto the lands of plaintiffs and that thereby they have suffered damage for which they seek recovery. It is further claimed that the acts of the defendant were malicious and oppressive and punitive damages are sought.
The defendant admitted the existence of the water contract and denied generally the remaining allegations of the complaint. In this connection the defendant denied that there had been any modification of the terms of the original agreement. The action was tried before a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Acadia, California, Ltd. in the amount of $5,753 compensatory damages and $10,000 punitive damages, and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Burke in the amount of $8,000 compensatory damages and $10,000 punitive damages. In addition thereto, the court rendered its further judgment purporting to adjudicate the rights of the parties under the water contract as found to be amended. From this judgment the defendant appeals.
Appellant upon this appeal has raised many questions with reference to the sufficiency of the evidence and with reference to the law applicable to the facts involved. In view of the fact that we find it necessary to reverse the judgment because of errors and uncertainties in the instructions, it would serve no useful purpose to indulge in a more detailed statement of facts and a more detailed discussion of the issues than is necessary to determine the propriety of instructions involved.
The court instructed the jury, in substance, that the defendant was obligated under the agreement as modified to furnish such water as was reasonably necessary for domestic and household uses and for the adequate irrigation of plants, shrubs, trees, gardens and lawns, not exceeding 1/50th of the water available from the defendant's well on the premises. The court further instructed: 'The term 'available' as applied to this case means that amount of water capable of being produced by the well assuming it was operated to its full capacity.' By the foregoing instructions, the court, in substance, determined in accordance with the plaintiffs' claims the issue as to the construction of the contract and the issue as to its having been amended and modified. Were the only issue involved the correctness of the court's construction of the contract in the light of the evidence, we would not be inclined to disagree with that construction, following the rule that the appellate court will not disturb the construction placed upon the instrument unless the same be unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.
As a result of combining into one action a complaint for declaratory relief, a complaint for injury and an action for damages, it is not an unusual result that some confusion follows. The contract in this case is not free from uncertainty. It is ambiguous in the sense that it is susceptible of more than one meaning. Whether the original owner of the property obligated himself to furnish to each of these parties a full 1/50th of the entire potential quantity of the water that could be produced upon his remaining premises, or whether he obligated himself to furnish from time to time to each owner a 1/50th fraction of the water then being produced, or whether he obligated himself to furnish an amount equivalent to 1/50th of the capacity of the well and pumping facility then in existence, becomes a matter of construction of the contract. Under the general rules for such interpretation there may be taken into consideration the surrounding facts and circumstances existing at the time the contract was entered into. There may also be considered such interpretation as the parties have themselves placed upon the contract and such interpretation as may have resulted from any subsequent modifications or discussions with reference thereto. There is in the record evidence upon all of these matters. There is some conflict in the evidence. Unquestionably as a result of a consideration of the physical facts and surrounding circumstances the court reached its conclusion and its interpretation.
The difficulty with that situation is that the parties were engaged in the trial before a jury of an action for damages. Regardless of whether the damages claimed were for a breach of contract or for tort, there was involved as one of the necessary elements the amount of water to which each of the plaintiffs was entitled. Where the interpretation of a contract is to be made solely from an examination of the instrument itself, such interpretation is one of law for the court, but where there is involved a consideration of extrinsic evidence to resolve an ambiguity of the contract, the intepretation becomes one of fact. Walsh v. Walsh, 18 Cal.2d 439, 116 P.2d 62.
It is held that the plaintiff may not, by combining in one action counts for declaratory relief and counts for damages, deprive the defendant of his right to a jury determination of their contractual rights where there is involved in such determination a question of fact. Coats v. General Motors Corp., 3 Cal.App.2d 340, 39 P.2d 838.
Where there is involved extrinsic evidence for the interpretation of a contract it is held to be error for the court to take such interpretation from the jury. In other words, the courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial