Hill v. Den
Citations
- 121 Cal. 42
- 53 P. 642
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 849
Syllabus
<p>Obal Contract fob Lands—Statute of Fbauds—Paet Performance.—An oral contract for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein, is invalid under the statute of frauds; but where there has been a part performance thereof, its specific performance will be compelled by a court of equity.</p> <p>In.—Sale of Life Estate—Services—Possession—Notice to Grantee— Specific Pf.rformance.—Where services were rendered by a married woman under an oral agreement with her employer that in consideration for such services he would deed certain lands to her and her husband as a home during their lives, and the contract was fully performed on her part, and partly performed on the part of the employer by surrendering the possession and control of the lands to her and her husband, she could demand and enforce a specific performance of the contract as against the employer and as against his grantee, who must be deemed to have taken with notice of the rights of the possessors.</p> <p>Id.—Action for Value of Services—Surrender of Possession.—Where the purchaser under a verbal contract for land has been put in possession and has rendered services in payment of the price, no action will lie to recover the value of the services, without first surrendering possession of the land; and where possession was retained when such action was commenced, the action cannot be aided by a subsequent offer to restore the possession.</p> <p>In.—Maintenance of Action—Supplemental Complaint.—An action cannot be maintained unless the cause of action existed at the time the action was commenced; and if a party has no cause of action at the time of its commencement, he cannot maintain it by filing a supplemental complaint founded upon matters which have subsequently occurred.</p>
Judges: Belcher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gates v. McLeanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-06-23· cited 37×
- Fuller v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 33×
- Wittenbrock v. BellmerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 23×
- Hammond v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-09-06· cited 21×
- Rhorer v. BilaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-02-03· cited 19×
- Herman v. HaffeneggerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 15×
- Haynes v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 13×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.