Snidow v. Hill

• Decision Date: 18 October 1950
• Citation: 100 Cal.App.2d 31,222 P.2d 958
• Parties: SNIDOW et al. v. HILL et al. Civ. 17858.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 958

222 P.2d 958

100 Cal.App.2d 31

SNIDOW et al. v. HILL et al.

Civ. 17858.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Oct. 18, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 6, 1950.

Hearing Denied Dec. 14, 1950.

Barry Sullivan and Harry V. Leppek, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Allard, Brownsberger, Shelton & O'Connor and L. A. Shelton, all of Pomona, for respondents.

Houston A. Snidow, Azusa, in pro. per.

McCOMB, Justice.

This is an action to quiet title to certain real property. Defendants (1) appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiffs, (2) purportedly appeal from (a) the order denying a jury trial and (b) the order denying a motion for a new trial.

Facts: In July, 1945, plaintiffs owned a 17-acre citrus grove located in the county of Los Angeles just east of Glendora. At such time Mr. Snidow and Mr. Hill were general partners in a business known as the L. A. Trailer Service. About the 27th of June, 1945, they had a conversation culminating in an oral agreement for the purchase and sale of the citrus grove owned by plaintiffs. Under the terms of their agreement the price of the property was $55,000 including the fruit on the trees which was either picked or was in the process of being picked. Mr. Hill undertook and agreed to sell a home and a boat which he owned and to apply the proceeds toward the down payment on the grove. It was agreed that Mr. Snidow might take as much money as was or should become available out of the L. A. Trailer Service during the ensuing months and the portion of the proceeds thereof would apply toward the down payment on the grove. In addition defendants agreed to pay $3,000 on January 1 and July 1 of each year.

Pursuant to this agreement defendants entered into possession of the property. Prior to March 15, 1946, defendants had paid plaintiffs $1,000 in cash and also other monies which were applied toward the purchase price. On March 16, 1946, Mr. Snidow and Mr. Hill agreed as to the balance due on the purchase price and in May, 1946, the oral agreement between the parties was reduced to writing. ¹

The $3,000 payment due July 1, 1946, was paid on September 30, 1946. No other payments were made during 1946 except receipts from the fruit sold from the grove which were received by plaintiffs and applied toward the purchase price. Plaintiffs made demand on defendants for the $3,000 payment due January 1, 1947, and defendants made a partial payment thereon of $412 on January 27, 1947, and $600 on February 17, 1947. Finally on April 20, 1947, plaintiffs demanded the payment of the balance of the $3,000 due and were told that it was not going to be paid. On April 24, 1947, the present action to quiet title was filed. Defendants filed an answer praying for a judgment that they were the equitable owners of the property, and that plaintiffs be compelled to execute a conveyance and requested an accounting.

The case was tried and a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs. This judgment was reversed on appeal. (Snidow v. Hill, 87 Cal.App.2d 803, 197 P.2d 801.) Thereafter on March 1, 1949, defendants made a motion for a jury trial which was denied. At the same time the trial judge permitted defendants to file an amended and supplemental answer. By this pleading defendants attempted to allege fraud upon the part of plaintiffs which induced defendants to enter into the contract. Upon the retrial judgment was again entered in favor of plaintiffs and the present appeals have ensued.

Questions: First: Did plaintiff Houston A. Snidow perpetrate a fraud upon defendants or either of them?

This question must be answered in the negative. The trial court expressly found that defendants' allegations of fraud were untrue. Defendants do not attack the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain such finding. Therefore the finding is binding upon appeal.

Second: Was the contract uncertain as to the dates and amounts of payments due under it?

This question must also be answered in the negative. The contract provided, 'Purchasers agree to pay not less than $3,000.00 on the 1st day of January and the 1st day of June of each year.' This language is clear and unambiguous. The exact dates of payment as well as the minimum amount thereof is clearly stated in the quoted provision of the contract.

Third: Were the payments of $3,000 twice a year contingent on receipt of monies from the L. A. Trailer Service or the sale of crops?

This question must likewise be answered in the negative. The contract provided, 'Sellers hereunder shall have the right to all proceeds from the fruit or other rents, issues, and profits therefrom, until said obligation is paid.' Clearly such provision was for payments to be made in addition to the minimum requirement of $6,000 a year as provided elsewhere in the contract where it said, 'It is understood and agreed that moneys withdrawn from L. A. Trailer Service by either Houston A. Snidow or Hayden Hill may be credited against the amount due hereunder, as their interest may appear.'

Fourth: Were defendants in default at the time the present action was filed?

This question must be answered in the affirmative. The trial court found that defendants were in default at the time the present action was commenced and defendants do not attack the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain such finding. Therefore it is binding upon appeal.

Fifth: Was there a contract between the parties?

This question must also be answered in the affirmative. The trial court found that the parties entered into the agreement hereinabove mentioned. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain this finding is not questioned. Hence it is binding upon this court.

Sixth: Were defendants entitled to recover the...