Millick v. Peer

CourtUnited States Superior Court (California)
Citation279 P.2d 212,130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 894
Parties130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 894 Jay MILLICK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Wallace PEER, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. A. 21. Appellate Department, Superior Court, San Bernardino County, California
Decision Date26 January 1955

Page 212

279 P.2d 212
130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 894
Jay MILLICK, Plaintiff and Respondent,
John Wallace PEER, Defendant and Appellant.
Civ. A. 21.
Appellate Department, Superior Court, San Bernardino County, California.
Jan. 26, 1955.

Page 213

[130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 895] Norman P. Courtney, Fontana, for appellant.

Charleville & Henry, San Bernardino, for respondent.

COUGHLIN, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $310.72, under a contract of sale of an automobile. The agreed purchase price was $1,195. Among other things, the contract shows that a charge of $24 was made for 'TR. Lic.' It may be inferred that this item covered fees for transfer. The contract provided that, in the event of default, the seller might repossess the automobile; resell the same at a private sale; and hold the purchaser for the balance due. It was also stated in the contract that 'the receipt of a copy of this contract is hereby acknowledged by Purchaser'.

The defendant advances three grounds for reversal:

1. The first ground urged is that the contract is unenforceable because of a failure to comply with Section 2982 of the Civil Code. It is contended that the contract does not set forth.

'A description and itemization of amounts * * * [130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 896] which will actually be paid by the seller * * * to any public officer as fees in connection with the transaction * * *';

also that the evidence fails to establish that an exact copy of the contract was 'delivered by the seller to the buyer at the times of its execution'; and further, that the original or an exact copy of a policy of insurance required by the seller was not delivered to the purchaser within thirty days after execution of the contract.

It is the opinion of the Court that none of these contentions is sustainable under the general rule that, upon appeal,

Page 214

any evidence and all inferences that legally may be drawn therefrom which would sustain a finding in support of the judgment must be accepted by the Appellate Court in determining the sufficiency of such evidence as a matter of law. The record establishes a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 2982 of the Civil Code for, although the contract under consideration did not itemize the charges made in the order prescribed by Subdivision (a) of said Section, nevertheless, in substance, the requirements were met. The contract introduced in evidence, which was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Stasher v. Harger-Haldeman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 21, 1962
    ...7), 322 P.2d 592; Adams v. Caruso Enterprises, Inc. (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 403, 408 (1), 285 P.2d 1022; Millick v. Peer (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 894, 896(1), 279 P.2d 212.) Substantial compliance, as the phrase is used in the decisions, means actual compliance in respect to the substance ......
  • Williams v. Caruso Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Superior Court (California)
    • March 27, 1956
    ...and not those set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) of that section, in support of which we are cited to Millick v. Peer, 1955, 130 Cal.App.2d Supp., 894, 896, 279 P.2d 212. But that case has now been repudiated by the court which decided it. Baum v. Aleman, 1956, 139 Cal.App.2d Supp. 929, ......
  • McMillen v. Pippin
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 1963
    ...prevailing at the time of resale. (General Motors Accept. Corp. v. Brown, 2 Cal.App.2d 646, 38 P.2d 482; Millick v. Peer, 130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 894, 897, 279 P.2d 212; Hill v. Dominquez, 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 891, 894, 291 P.2d 203; General Motors Accept. Corp. v. Dickinson, 249 Ky. 422, 60 S......
  • Fine v. S & C Finance, 17645
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 1958
    ...with the 'form and requisites' of section 2982, the mandates of that section do not apply. Defendant quotes from Millick v. Peer, 130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 894, 279 P.2d 212, 214, a statement to the effect that the insurance there involved was issued after the expiration of an existing policy an......
  • 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