Lassiter v. California Trust Co.
E. T. LASSITER Et Al., Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA TRUST COMPANY (A Corporation), Respondent
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- Douglas L. Edmonds
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jess E. Stephens (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Stephens
STEPHENS, J.
Complainants ask a money judgment. The essential facts are as follows: Before the recording *8 of a plat of ground containing such property plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase two lots and paid a consideration thereon. After the recording of the plat two separate agreements were entered into between the parties, one for the purchase of one of the lots, the other for the purchase of the other. The consideration paid under the first agreement was applied upon the subsequent agreements. The complaint is for the return of the consideration paid under the first agreement. Defendant’s general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and judgment for defendant followed.
The first agreement was void and the parties themselves adjusted the matter. If authority is needed Letteau v. Dumas, 99 Cal. App. 230' [278 Pac. 459], supplies it.
Judgment affirmed.
Works, P. J., and Arehbald, J., pro tern., concurred.
A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 1, 1933.
Cites, in this corpus
- Letteau v. Dumas Docket No. 3775. · 1929-05-29