Elmquist v. Lock
| Decision Date | 28 July 1961 |
| Citation | Elmquist v. Lock, 15 Cal.Rptr. 447, 194 Cal.App.2d 372 (Cal. App. 1961) |
| Parties | George M. ELMQUIST and Irene H. Elmquist, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Del R. LOCK and Marion C. Lock, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 24862. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
J. E. Simpson, Eugene M. Elson, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Leonard Nasatir, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiffs were the owners of a restaurant and cocktail bar which defendant wished to acquire, as well as a general onsale liquor license. Plaintiffs purchased with their own funds the license for $7,087.50 and pursuant to an application filed by plaintiff George M. Elmquist and defendant Del R. Lock, on or about June 23, 1952, there was issued such a license in the names of the applicants for the operation of a business on plaintiffs' property to be known as Del's Chuck Wagon. The parties entered into a contract by the terms of which plaintiffs agreed to sell and defendants to buy the restaurant, bar equipment and license for the sum of $17,949.32, the purchase price to include the liquor license priced at $7,087.50, payable in installments with interest on deferred payments at 3% per annum. Plaintiffs also leased the property to defendants, who took possession and operated the business until February 1958. Installments of the purchase price were paid to that date in the total amount of $6,907.53 of which plaintiff credited the sum of $4,502.84 to principal and $2,404.69 to interest. Upon cessation of payments plaintiffs terminated the agreement and were restored to possession of the property.
In the meantime, plaintiff George M. Elmquist surrendered the liquor license to the Board of Equalization.
The present action was instituted to quiet title to the liquor license and to require Del R. Lock to perform whatever acts were necessary to vest title thereto in George M. Elmquist. In a separate cause of action plaintiffs sought recovery of $588.95 for the conversion of a refrigerator, as to which the appeal presents no question. Defendants filed a cross-complaint by which they sought a judgment requiring plaintiffs to cause the license to be transferred to Mr Lock. It was alleged that defendants had paid in full the purchase price of the license with the exception of $243.77 which had been tendered by defendants to plaintiffs as the unpaid balance of the price of the license. Except for the award to plaintiffs of $588.95 plus $100 as attorney's fees, the judgment denied further recovery by either side. The basis of the judgment was that the provisions of the conditional sales contract under which each of the parties seeks to acquire full ownership of the license are illegal and void.
The illegality of the controlling provisions of the contract as construed by the court consists of the violation of the prohibitions of section 24076, Business and Professions Code which read as follows:
Each party claims under the following provisions of the contract:
The court made the following conclusion of law: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Associated Creditors' Agency v. Davis
...540, 542--545, 27 Cal.Rptr. 508; Belle'Isle v. Hempy (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 14, 17, 23 Cal.Rptr. 599; Elmquist v. Lock (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 372, 376--378, 15 Cal.Rptr. 447; and Citrigno v. Williams (9th Cir. 1958) 255 F.2d 675, 678--679. Cf. Holt v. Morgan (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 113, 116--11......
-
Greve v. Leger, Limited
...interpretation and that the word 'pledge' must be regarded in its colloquial rather than its legal sense. (Elmquist v. Lock (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 372, 376, 15 Cal.Rptr. 447; Citrigno v. Williams (9 Cir.1958) 255 F.2d 675, 678--679.) In the absence of a more plausible interpretation of this ......
-
Hammond v. Pasquini
...which have come to our attention involve slightly different factual situations. For example, the recent case of Elmquist v. Lock (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 372, 15 Cal.Rptr. 447, which is relied on by respondents, is not strictly in point despite the similarity of the problem involved. In that c......
-
Belle'Isle v. Hempy
...same rights as between the parties, if accruing after such date, are unenforceable if violative of said statute. (Elmquist v. Lock, 194 Cal.App.2d 372, 376, 15 Cal.Rptr. 447; Holt v. Morgan, 128 Cal.App.2d 113, 116-117, 274 P.2d 915; Citrigno v. Williams, 9 Cir., 255 F.2d 675, 679.) There i......