Coyne v. Krempels

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtTRAYNOR; GIBSON
Citation223 P.2d 244,36 Cal.2d 257
PartiesCOYNE v. KREMPELS et al. L. A. 21602.
Decision Date27 October 1950

Page 244

223 P.2d 244
36 Cal.2d 257
COYNE

v.
KREMPELS et al.
L. A. 21602.
Supreme Court of California, in Bank.
Oct. 27, 1950.

Page 245

[36 Cal.2d 258] Jesse A. Hamilton and Joseph T. Forno, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Jerrell Babb, Los Angeles, for respondent.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a summary judgment for plaintiff in an action for damages for breach of contract and from an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. The action was brought against defendant and his wife, Pauline Krempels, but judgment was entered only against defendant and he alone appeals.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged that he and defendants entered into a written agreement that for sixty days from the date of execution of the agreement plaintiff would have the exclusive[36 Cal.2d 259] right to sell a house bus owned by defendants and that plaintiff would have the right to retain as commission on the sale any amounts received in excess of the agreed price of $4,500 therefor. It was further agreed that defendants would 'park said bus for purposes of demonstration and sale at a place in the City of Los Angeles designated in the agreement.' Plaintiff alleged that he procured buyers 'ready, willing and able to purchase said bus for the sum of $8,500,' and that he requested defendants to park the bus at the designated place so that it might be inspected by the prospective purchasers, but that defendants 'have failed and refused, and still fail and refuse to perform the said contract on their side and have prevented, and do prevent, plaintiff from showing said bus for demonstration and sale and have withheld, and do now withhold, despite plaintiff's demand for access to said bus for purposes aforesaid, same from plaintiff at a place hidden and unknown to plaintiff.' As a result of the alleged breach of contract, plaintiff lost a prospective sale of the house bus, to his damage in the amount of $4,000, for which he prayed judgment.

Defendants filed a verified answer, generally denying all of plaintiff's allegations. As an affirmative defense, they alleged that plaintiff had demanded that the bus be delivered to his home instead of the place designated in the agreement, and that he had refused to perform the contract unless the bus was so delivered. They also alleged that 'plaintiff has at no time produced a buyer, ready, willing and able to pay the sum of $8,500 or any other sum for said bus, and plaintiff has never made demand upon defendants, or either of them; for said bus for the purpose of demonstration and sale.'

Plaintiff then filed his motion for summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c 1, supported by affidavits of himself and one John Miller, setting

Page 246

forth the facts upon which the motion was based. Plaintiff's affidavit disclosed that before the execution of the agreement allegedly breached [36 Cal.2d 260] by defendants he entered into an agreement with defendants by which he bought the bus for $4,500, of which $4,000 was to be paid within five days and the remaining $500 upon resale of the the bus. Upon plaintiff's failure to pay any part of the purchase price, defendants brought suit therefor and secured a writ of attachment of the bus. The parties then entered into the present agreement, appended to the affidavit as an exhibit, by which plaintiff surrendered his right and title to the bus to defendants in consideration of their dismissal of their action with prejudice dice and their grant to plaintiff of the exclusive right to sell the bus under the terms and conditions set forth in the complaint. Thereafter plaintiff demanded of defendants and their attorney that they perform the terms of the agreement but they consistently refused to do so and denied plaintiff or his prospective purchasers access thereto. During the sixty days following the execution of the agreement, plaintiff had several buyers who agreed to purchase the bus, subject to examination demonstration, and production of the certificate of title 'at a price and under conditions which would have netted this plaintiff $4,000' in commission, but plaintiff was unable to sell the bus to any of the prospective buyers by reason of defendants' failure to produce it for examination and demonstration.

The affidavit of Miller, an employee of plaintiff's attorney, supported plaintiff's allegations with respect to the execution of the agreement, plaintiff's continually unsuccessful attempts to secure performance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 practice notes
  • Dixon v. Grace Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 1972
    ...and the counteraffidavits do not set forth competent and sufficient evidence to present a triable issue of fact. (Coyne v. Krempels, 36 Cal.2d 257, 261, 223 P.2d 244 (1950); Burke v. Hibernia Bank, 186 Cal.App.2d 739, 744, 9 Cal.Rptr. 890 (1960).) There must be a sufficiently supportive aff......
  • Hejmadi v. Amfac, Inc., No. A035675
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 1988
    ...981 and C.L. Smith Co. v. Roger Ducharme, Inc. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 735, 745, 135 Cal.Rptr. 483, both citing Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 262, 223 P.2d If the court finds that the pleading is insufficient, it has discretion, as the court did here, to grant the opposing party leav......
  • Whitney's At for Beach v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1970
    ...60 Cal.Rptr. 377, 429 P.2d 889; R. D. Reeder Lathing Co. v. Allen (1967) 66 Cal.2d 373, 376--377, 57 Cal.Rptr.; Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 260--261, 223 P.2d 244; Petersen v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 775, 66 Cal.Rptr. 776; Jones v. Forburger (1967) 248 Cal.App......
  • Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley, No. H027422.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 2005
    ...Thus, putting aside any affirmative defenses (discussed below), Firm was entitled to summary judgment. (See Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 261-262, 223 P.2d 244 [plaintiff entitled to summary judgment where he established by competent evidence the existence of contract, defendants'......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
149 cases
  • Dixon v. Grace Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 1972
    ...and the counteraffidavits do not set forth competent and sufficient evidence to present a triable issue of fact. (Coyne v. Krempels, 36 Cal.2d 257, 261, 223 P.2d 244 (1950); Burke v. Hibernia Bank, 186 Cal.App.2d 739, 744, 9 Cal.Rptr. 890 (1960).) There must be a sufficiently supportive aff......
  • Hejmadi v. Amfac, Inc., No. A035675
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 1988
    ...981 and C.L. Smith Co. v. Roger Ducharme, Inc. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 735, 745, 135 Cal.Rptr. 483, both citing Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 262, 223 P.2d If the court finds that the pleading is insufficient, it has discretion, as the court did here, to grant the opposing party leav......
  • Whitney's At for Beach v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1970
    ...60 Cal.Rptr. 377, 429 P.2d 889; R. D. Reeder Lathing Co. v. Allen (1967) 66 Cal.2d 373, 376--377, 57 Cal.Rptr.; Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 260--261, 223 P.2d 244; Petersen v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 775, 66 Cal.Rptr. 776; Jones v. Forburger (1967) 248 Cal.App......
  • Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley, No. H027422.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 2005
    ...Thus, putting aside any affirmative defenses (discussed below), Firm was entitled to summary judgment. (See Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 261-262, 223 P.2d 244 [plaintiff entitled to summary judgment where he established by competent evidence the existence of contract, defendants'......
  • 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