Reid v. Valley Restaurants, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 May 1957 |
Citation | 311 P.2d 473,48 Cal.2d 606 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | Jessle L. REID and Robert W. Reid, Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants and Respondents, v. VALLEY RESTAURANTS, Inc. (a Corporation), Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant. L. A. 24064. |
Albert E. Isenberg and Don Lowry, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
Girard F. Baker and John W. Erpelding, Los Angeles, for respondents.
From a judgment denying defendant and cross-complainant attorney's fees, defendant and cross-complainant appeals.
i. On or about July 14, 1953, plaintiffs leased to defendant a restaurant known as 'The Goody-Goody Drive-In.' The lease contained provisions (a) prohibiting assignment or subletting by lessee without the written consent of lessors first being obtained, and (b) that in case suit should be brought by either party against the other by reason of the breach of any of its provisions the successful party in such suit should be entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee and costs of said action in such amount as might be fixed the court.
ii. On December 28, 1954, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant for unlawful detainer and to quiet title to the property covered by the lease, alleging that defendant had violated the terms of the lease in assigning it without first obtaining the written consent of plaintiffs and failing properly to account to plaintiffs for gross profits derived from the business.
iii. On January 3, 1955, defendant filed its answer and also a cross-complaint, by which it sought to recover attorney's fees in accordance with the provisions of the lease.
iv. During the course of the trial plaintiffs offered to reinstate the lease and to dismiss the action upon payment of back rents and an accounting being made for other rents, to which defendant's counsel replied: (Italics added.)
After further discussion plaintiffs' counsel stated to the court: * * *'
Thereupon the trial court made the following minute order:
v. On May 27, 1955, written findings of fact and conclusions of law were waived by both parties.
vi. On June 6, 1955, the trial judge filed a judgment ordering that defendant take nothing by its cross-complaint, and that neither party recover costs against the other.
Defendant contends on this appeal:
First: The judgment, insofar as it fails to provide that the complaint be dismissed, is in conflict with and violates the stipulation of the parties;
Second: The judgment is against the law, insofar as it fails to award to defendant reasonable attorney's fees.
These contentions are not sound. The applicable fule is thus accurately stated by Mr. Justice Schauer in Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10(3), 152 P.2d 1003, 1007, 155 A.L.R. 1319: If the evidence before the trial court is not in the record on appeal, it will be conclusively presumed that the evidence sustained the implied findings of fact.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law having been waived by the parties in the present case, this court will presume, in accordance with the rule above stated that the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Long Beach v. Bozek
...party in the absence of an express statutory provision or a contractual agreement that they be paid." (Reid v. Valley Restaurants, Inc. (1957) 48 Cal.2d 606, 610, 311 P.2d 473; Code Civ.Proc., § 1021.) In Baugess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 150 Cal.Rptr. 461, 586 P.2d 942, we held that t......
-
Ellena v. State of California
...of dismissal. It must be presumed that the trial judge found all necessary facts to support the judgment (Reid v. Valley Restaurants, Inc., 48 Cal.2d 606, 609, 311 P.2d 473; Philbrick v. Huff, 60 Cal.App.3d 633, 649--650, 131 Cal.Rptr. 733), and the judgment must be affirmed if the implied ......
-
Pas v. Hill
...145 Cal.Rptr. 691, 577 P.2d 1031; Freeman v. Goldberg, 55 Cal.2d 622, 625, 12 Cal.Rptr. 668, 361 P.2d 244; Reid v. Valley Restaurants, Inc., 48 Cal.2d 606, 610, 311 P.2d 473; Genis v. Krasne, 47 Cal.2d 241, 246, 302 P.2d 289; Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. Moore, 78 Cal.App.3d 477, 485, 14......
-
Russell v. Carleson
...party in the absence of an express statutory provision or a contractual agreement that they be paid.' (Reid v. Valley Restaurants, Inc. (1957) 48 Cal.2d 606, 610, 311 P.2d 473, 475; see, Code Civ.Proc., § 1021.) 'An exception to the general rule is found, however, in the so-called common-fu......