Bartlett v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 03 April 1951 |
| Citation | 229 P.2d 434,103 Cal.App.2d 250 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BARTLETT et al. v. ROGERS et al. Civ. 17823. |
Geo. W. Rochester, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Steiner A. Larsen and Garvin F. Shallenberger, Los Angeles, for respondents.
This is an unmeritorious appeal from a judgment rendered in an action seeking specific performance of a contract and to enjoin the appellants from interfering with its subject matter.
The facts which are here material deduced from the evidence most favorable to the respondents are readily stated. Early in 1948 or late in 1947 the defendant-appellant Melville Rogers learned that the Los Serranos Country Club and the property of a water company which supplied water to it could be purchased as a unit for approximately $150,000. As neither appellant Melville Rogers nor his wife Consuelo were possessed of any capital whatsoever he sought to interest his brother Kenneth A. Rogers, a plaintiff-respondent, in purchasing the property. Kenneth, unlike his brother, was possessed of considerable financial means. Moreover, he was a golfer of some renown and retired from business and hence was attracted by the possibilities of the property. However, as the down cash payment required was about $90,000 and Kenneth could not raise more than half that sum without unduly sacrificing some of his assets, Melville sought and found in plaintiff-respondent Bartlett a person who was willing to supply one half the funds needed. Before the purchase was consummated the plaintiffs and the defendant Melville agreed that the latter should be employed by the plaintiffs to manage the country club at a salary of $6,000.00 annually for his services and that of his wife plus 20% of the net annual profits in excess of $10,000.00 and free living quarters; that the balance of the net profits should be paid to the plaintiffs until such time as the moneys invested in the project by plaintiffs was repaid to them with interest at 5%; that when this was accomplished the two plaintiffs and the defendant Melville were to own the properties in equal shares. At the suggestion of a third party--one McCormick, a recent arrival from Europe who posed as a doctor, but had no such degree, and was employed by the plaintiff Bartlett as her 'investment counselor,' the parties concluded that the defendant Melville should execute a note to the plaintiffs in the sum of $90,000 to evidence the investment of the plaintiffs and that it should be payable only out of the net profits of the country club operation; that title should be vested of record in Melville; that the latter should execute and deliver grant deeds of the property to the plaintiffs so that they could record them at any time they chose to do so. To carry out this agreement Melville, who was not an attorney, drafted an ambiguous contract that was supposed to carry out the terms thus agreed upon. The contract, as drafted, was executed by all the parties and is known in the record as Exhibit 'A.' After the properties were acquired and documents had been executed and delivered as contemplated by the contract, the defendant Melville took over the management of the property. The anticipated profits did not materialize and the plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the manner in which Melville managed the property demanded that he leave it; that he accept $2,000.00 for all his right, title and interest in the property and for all his claims against the plaintiffs under a threat by the plaintiffs that unless he did so they would institute actions in court against him. As a result of letters passing between the parties they reached an agreement that the defendant would leave the country club and disclaim any rights he had therein or against the plaintiffs on June 6, 1949, upon the payment of $2,000 unless in the meantime he was able to pay to plaintiff what they had invested in the properties. If he did so he was to be invested with all the rights plaintiffs had in the properties. As the defendant Melville failed in his endeavors, the plaintiffs tendered to him the sum of $2,000, recorded the deeds the defendant had originally executed to them, and demanded the disclaimers. The defendant refused to accept the $2,000 or otherwise comply with the demands of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pg & E Corp. v. Public Utilities Com'n
...and third parties that have been entered into as conditions to the PUC's approval of a property sale. (See Bartlett v. Rogers (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 250, 254, 229 P.2d 434; Dillingham v. Schipp (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 553, 558, 316 P.2d 1014.) Because these cases presuppose the existence of a ......
-
Transport Clearings-Bay Area v. Simmonds
...of the assets of a public utility. (Dillingham v. Schipp (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 553, 559, 316 P.2d 1014; Bartlett v. Rogers (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 250, 253, 254, 229 P.2d 434, 437.) As the court said in Bartlett, supra: 'Unquestionably that body [the Public Utilities Commission] has power to ......
-
PG&E Corporation v. Public Utilities Commission, A099858 (CA 5/21/2004)
...utilities and third parties that have been entered into as conditions to the PUC's approval of a property sale. (See Bartlett v. Rogers (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 250, 254; Dillingham v. Schipp (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 553, 558.) Because these cases presuppose the existence of a contract entered in......
-
Pravorne v. McLeod
...Co., 43 Nev. 191, 194, 183 P. 386, 387; Geary v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 366 Ill. 625, 10 N.E.2d 350; Bartlett v. Rogers, 103 Cal.App.2d 250, 229 P.2d 434, 437; 1 Corbin, Contracts § 31, at Here McLeod had the contract drawn by his own attorney and he himself mailed it to Pravorne......
-
Mergers
...(requiring approval before one telephone corporation can acquire any stock in another telephone corporation); see also Bartlett v. Rogers, 229 P.2d 434, 437 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951) (“[A] transfer or sale of the assets of a public Many states review proposed telecommunications and cable i......
-
Table of Cases
...284 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2002), 139 Barnes Found. v. Township of Lower Merion, 927 F. Supp. 874 (E.D. Pa. 1996)., 370 Bartlett v. Rogers, 229 P.2d 434 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951), 262 BASF Corp. v. POSM II Properties P’ship, L.P., 2009 WL 522721 (Del. Ch. 2009), 165 Bastien v. AT&T Wireless ......
-
Chapter II. Mergers
...(requiring approval before one telephone corporation can acquire any stock in another telephone corporation); see also Bartlett v. Rogers, 229 P.2d 434, 437 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951) (“[A] transfer or sale of the assets of a public utility is void unless and until the Public Utility Commis......
-
Table of Cases
...237 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 2001), 311, 323 Barnes Found. v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 927 F. Supp. 874 (E.D. Pa. 1996), 317 Bartlett v. Rogers, 229 P.2d 434 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951), 99 BASF Corp. v. POSM II Properties P’ship, L.P., 2009 WL 522721 (Del. Ch. 2009), 204 554 Telecom Antitrust Handbo......