Newman v. Albert
| Decision Date | 26 May 1959 |
| Citation | 339 P.2d 588,170 Cal.App.2d 678 |
| Parties | Henning NEWMAN and Esther Newman, his wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Donald Forbes ALBERT, as Executor of the Estate of John William Forbes, et al., Defendants, Donald Forbes Albert, as Executor of the Estate or John William Forbes, Appellant. Civ. 6020. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rogers & Rogers, Long Beach, for appellant.
McCormick, Moock & McCormick, Visalia, and William O. Minor, Sacramento, for respondents.
This is an action for declaratory relief and for specific performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of real property. The trial court ordered judgment for plaintiffs and ordered that a deed conveying the real property involved be delivered to plaintiffs upon payment to the defendant executor of the sum of $9,000. Defendant Donald Forbes Albert, as executor of the estate of John William Forbes, appeals from the judgment, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support and sustain the findings.
On May 24, 1946, John W. Forbes, Henning Newman and his wife, Esther Newman, signed and executed an agreement for the sale of certain real property near Lindsay, in Tulare county, by Forbes to the Newmans, for the total contract price of $60,000. The agreement (plaintiffs' exhibit 1) provides for the payment by the buyers of $5,000 upon the execution and delivery of the agreement, $10,000 on or before July 1, 1946, and the balance of $45,000 in yearly payments of $3,500, plus interest. A copy of the agreement and a deed from Forbes to the purchasers were delivered to the Security Title Company in Visalia as escrow holder and agent for the collection of the sums becoming due under the contract. Contemporaneously with this agreement of sale, and on the same date, the parties executed an agreement in writing (defendants' exhibit A) wherein it was agreed that the Newmans shall have the use of all trucks, tractors, tools, machinery and equipment of Forbes for one year, free of cost, and at any time within sixty days after the expiration of said year, the Newmans shall have the option to purchase said machinery and equipment. It was further agreed that Forbes 'may for so long as said contract is in effect, have the right to personally use the one bedroom in the dwelling house on the said olive grove that he now uses, as his own bedroom for his personal use as a bedroom, and that for the same period of time (the Newmans) will furnish (Forbes) with meals and board as ordinarily served in their family, at no cost to (Forbes).' It was further agreed that if Forbes required any extraordinary service, the Newmans would be paid a reasonable sum therefor. Forbes lived with the Newmans from May, 1946, to January 27, 1947, when he was taken to a sanitarium in Glendale, where he died on February 1, 1947.
In the summer of 1946 Forbes handed Newman a signed list of machinery and equipment then on the property and told Newman that he was giving them this property. Newman testified in this connection that Forbes 'One day was sitting writing in the afternoon, and he said 'Henny, I have a surprise for you', and handed me this paper and said that he thinks we was doing so good that he would help us along and give us this equipment, and he gave it to me and handed me this paper.' The list of equipment and machinery was substantially the same as that on which the Newmans had an option to purchase.
On November 26, 1946, Forbes signed a document acknowledging receipt of $20,000 paid on the contract and interest to January 1, 1947, and stating that 'thereafter all interest to accrue is, for a good and valuable consideration by me received of and from the Newmans, hereby waived.' At the time this document was executed by Forbes a signed copy was delivered to the Newmans and, at the Newmans' request, the following was typed at the bottom of the agreement: 'In consideration of the waiver of said interest, we agree to provide John W. Forbes with a place to live in our home and home care therein for so long as he shall live.' Newman and his wife signed this agreement.
During the summer of 1946 Forbes and the Newmans had many conversations with reference to the condition of the olive trees on the property. These trees were in bad condition in November, 1946, Forbes offered to deduct $10,000 from the purchase price of the property if Newman would graft the trees and put them in good condition.
On January 27, 1947, Forbes asked his attorney, James R. McBride to come out to the Newmans' house where he was staying, stating that he 'had some documents for him to take care of.' When McBride arrived he had a discussion with Forbes alone in Forbes' room, following which Mr. and Mrs. Newman were called in and McBride was asked by Forbes to prepare the necessary document to deduct $10,000 from the purchase price of $60,000. The document was then written out by McBride and is as follows:
'To Henning and Esther Newman:
'Because the trees in the grove are in worse condition than I expected I hereby modify the terms of my agreement of April 1, 1946 by reducing the price from $60,000.00 to $50,000.00 which is a reduction of $10,000.00 and the payment of said $10,000.00 at the end or last maturing payment or payments is hereby waived.
'Date January 27, 1947.
'/s/ J. W. Forbes.'
This document was then signed by Forbes, who handed it to Newman and Newman gave it back to McBride, who took it with him when he left the house. Newman considered this document to contain the complete agreement and asked McBride if the piece of paper was and McBride said, 'Why not?' Forbes was preparing to go to a sanitarium in Glendale and told the Newmans that one of the matters he had to take care of before he went was putting in writing the agreement that they had about taking $10,000 off the last payment for the grafting of the trees.
From April 21, 1946, to April 1, 1954, six payments of $3,500 each were made by the Newmans to the executor of the Forbes estate, or a total of $21,000. The Newmans completed the grafting of the trees as agreed when Forbes signed the waiver of January 27, 1947. On April 26, 1955, the Newmans deposited with the Security Title Insurance Company the check of C. O. Cowles for $5,900, the check of Henning Newman for $3,100, and a United States Treasury check for $205. This last mentioned check was payable to the Newmans and the executor of the Forbes estate and was endorsed by the Newmans. The title company, on orders from the attorneys for the estate, refused to deliver a deed to the property to the Newmans and the present action followed. The Newmans have made substantial improvements to the property involved and have been in possession since May of 1946.
The rule as to our province, where, as here, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings is questioned, is stated in Re Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221, 223, 143 P.2d 689, 690, as follows:
"* * * all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent, and all legitimate and reasonable inferences indulged in to uphold the verdict if possible. It is an elementary * * * principle of law, that when a verdict is attacked as being unsupported, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the conclusion reached by the jury. When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.' (Italics added.) (Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 1935, 3 Cal.2d 427, 429, 45 P.2d 183, 184.) The rule quoted is as applicable in reviewing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knauss v. Miles Homes, Inc.
...to the detriment of the respondent. Unless clearly warranted by the facts of the case, estoppel is not favored. Newman v. Albert, 170 Cal.App.2d 678, 339 P.2d 588 (1959). To warrant the application of the doctrine of estoppel, the matter must have a strong appeal to the court's sense of jus......
-
Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co.
...v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427, 429, 45 P.2d 183; Richter v. Walker, 36 Cal.2d 634, 640, 226 P.2d 593; Newman v. Albert, 170 Cal.App.2d 678, 683, 339 P.2d 588; Overton v. Vita-Food Corp., 94 Cal.App.2d 367, 370, 210 P.2d 757; E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. Higgins, 54 Cal.2d 91, 4 Cal.Rptr......
-
Doria v. International Union, Allied Indus. Workers of America, AFL-CIO
...P.2d 723); and since estoppel is not favored and must clearly be proved (Lorenz v. Rousseau, 85 Cal.App. 1, 258 P. 690; Newman v. Albert, 170 Cal.App.2d 678, 339 P.2d 588), it will not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular. Johnson v. Johnson, 179 Cal.App.2d 326, 3 Cal.Rptr. ......
-
Alba's Estate, In re
...Food Stores, 113 Cal.App.2d 873, 878, 249 P.2d 301; Zoeller v. Schneider, 141 Cal.App.2d 684, 687, 297 P.2d 40; Newman v. Albert, 170 Cal.App.2d 678, 685, 339 P.2d 588.) Accordingly, it is well settled that where acts are relied on to establish abandonment or waiver of a legal right there m......