Abbott v.

76 LAND AND WATER CO. 161 Cal. 42. 118 P. 425 (1911)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This was an action for damages; the action was taken by L.E. Abbott as assignee of the cause of action from the original owner O.L. Abbott (P). The complaint alleged that on October 1, 1887, 76 Land and Water Co. (D) held legal title to 320 acres of land with appurtenant water rights under a duty to convey to P on receipt of $4,600. It was alleged that D refused to convey until March 4, 1892. It was further alleged that on October 1, 1887, the value of the premises was $16,000 and that it rose to $24,000. P alleged that he could have resold the property for that amount if legal title had not been withheld. P also alleged that the property depreciated in value until at the time of conveyance it was worth only $9,600. P claimed damages in the sum of $14,400. D answered and denied the allegations and alleged as a special defense that P began and prosecuted to final judgment on the merits an action against D wherein all matters relating to the alleged depreciation could and should have been litigated. The trial court found that P took possession under a written lease with the privilege of purchasing the property for $4,800 at any time before October 1, 1886. On or about that date, P accepted a renewal lease for one more year with no right to purchase. In September 1887, P then claimed a right to purchase the land and tendered the price. D denied that right and refused a demand for the deed. In 1889, P sued for specific performance and obtained the decree in February 1890. The decree was contingent on P paying the purchase price before October 1, 1890. P had not tendered the money and D claimed that P’s right under the decree had lapsed and therefore he was justified in refusing to execute the deed. D was then adjudged guilty of contempt. On March 5, 1992, D complied with the decree and executed the deed. The trial court reasoned that at the time of the breach of contract, no damages were sustained by P and he then elected the remedy of specific performance and did not bring an action at law to recover damages. The trial court found that the delay between the breach and the execution of the deed was caused by the specific performance suit with the parties litigating that issue in court. The trial court then found that P had suffered no damages and that if any was sustained it was caused by the delay in litigation. The trial court reasoned that these damages were remote and speculative and otherwise not recoverable at law. D got the judgment and P appealed.