Brockman v. Lane
| Decision Date | 26 April 1951 |
| Citation | 103 Cal.App.2d 802,230 P.2d 369 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BROCKMAN v. LANE et ux. Civ. 17866. |
Clyde Thomas, Los Angeles, for appellant.
J. M. Jessen and Reynolds, Painter & Cherniss, all of Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiff Stewart L. (Les) Brockman appeals from an adverse judgment in this action against E. C. Lane and wife for damages for a breach of an alleged oral agreement of partnership. It was alleged in the complaint that defendants entered into a partnership with plaintiff which was to continue for at least five years; defendants were to furnish capital to acquire, develop and farm certain unspecified land in Arizona; plaintiff would manage the development and farming of the land, would be allowed a drawing account of $300 per month, all capital advanced by defendants would be repaid to them from earnings and the remaining profits would be equally divided between plaintiff and defendants, plaintiff being charged with the amount of his withdrawals; full and complete terms of the contract were agreed upon; it was determined to pur the agreement in writing; plaintiff prepared and submitted an agreement providing that defendants would advance up to $102,000; defendants suggested that the agreement be changed so as to obligate them to advance only the sums needed as the operations progressed; defendants agreed to have the contract rewritten, which they failed to do and the agreement was not signed. Plaintiff performed his obligations under the agreement for more than one year; crops of great value were grown on the land, resulting in a large profit, but when harvest time came plaintiff was ejected from the land, defendants entered into possession, harvested the crops, retained the proceeds and denied and still deny that plaintiff has any interest in the property or profits of the alleged partnership. In a second cause of action it was alleged that defendants fraudulently induced plaintiff to render his services and had no intention of entering into a written agreement or allowing plaintiff to receive any profits or gains from his activities, all to his damage in the sum of $250,000. The complaint prayed for an accounting, damages, a declaration of plaintiff's rights and incidental relief. By their answer defendants denied the existence of the alleged partnership and alleged that they had employed plaintiff as manager of their farming operation under an oral agreement which was to run for five years, was subject to be and was terminated by them for cause. They also alleged that the oral agreement was not to be performed within a year and was invalid under sections 1973(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and 1624(1) of the Civil Code of California, and under chapter 58, section 58-101, subsection 5 of the Arizona Code Annotated. Defendants filed a cross-complaint for damages resulting from an alleged conspiracy to defraud, bringing in Stewart L. Brockman, Sr. as a defendant to the cross-complaint. Plaintiff, Stewart L. Brokman, Jr. answered; apparently Brockman, Sr. was not served with the cross-complaint.
When the action came on for trial the court on motion of defendants ruled that the trial would proceed first on the issue of the alleged invalidity of the oral agreement. Defendants presented this defense. By deposition of an attorney in Arizona they proved the terms of the proposed written agreement which Brockman, Jr. had caused to be prepared. In this writing, defendants were named party of the first part and Stewart L. Brockman, Jr. and Paula C. Brockman, his wife, party of the second part. No reason was shown for including Mrs. Brockman as a contracting party. The oral agreement was with Les Brockman. The writing provided that Lane and wife were to furnish approximately 900 acres of land for farming and at least $100,000 in capital; that 'first party agrees to employ second party for a period of at least five (5) years to supervise the cultivation of the land in a farmer-like manner and according to the usual course of farming practiced in the neighborhood.' It specified the duties of Brockman, provided for the return to defendants of the cost of clearing the land, purchasing equipment, construction of wells and 'all of the permanent construction,' and for the equal division of the net profits between the Lanes and Brockman. It read in part 'second party agrees that all costs will be maintained within 5% of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodge v. Evans Financial Corp.
...of partial performance to recover damages based on the nonperformance of the executory portion of the contract. Brockman v. Lane, 103 Cal.App.2d 802, 230 P.2d 369 (1951); Doughty v. Giffordline Chemical Co., 96 R.I. 223, 190 A.2d 480 (1963). See also 6 A.L.R.2d 1053, 1083 (1949) (cases coll......
-
Alliance Payment Systems, Inc. v. Walczer
...events occurred until the settlement was struck. Defendants contend that this case is indistinguishable from Brockman v. Lane (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 802, 230 P.2d 369 (Brockman), but we disagree. The plaintiff in Brockman contracted with the defendants to manage the development and farming o......
-
Ehrlich v. Zlot
...is required to establish a partnership. (Italics added.) People v. Holtz (1927) 85 Cal.App. 450 predates the UPA, and Brockman v. Lane (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 802 addresses a business relationship that was formed before the UPA went into effect. (Holmes v. Lerner (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 442, 45......
-
Gressley v. Williams
...was more than one year from the making thereof. Wickson v. Monarch Cycle Mfg. Co.., 128 Cal. 156, 159, 60 P. 764; Brockman v. Lane, 103 Cal.App.2d 802, 804-805, 230 P.2d 369. The statement that 'defendant is estopped from raising the defense that the aforesaid contract is invalid under the ......