Case ID: cal_76/html/0384-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 12444.
    In Bank.
    June 1, 1888.]
    E. A. PHILLIPS et al., Respondents, v. L. DECK, Appellant.
    Vendor and Vendee—Proposal for Sale—Acceptance—Reasonable Time. — An acceptance of a proposal for the sale of land, and the compliance with the terms of the proposal, held, to have been made within a reasonable time.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    On the 21st of February, 1887, the defendent, by an instrument in writing, made an offer to sell certain land to the plaintiffs for sixteen thousand dollars, one third to be paid in cash, and the balance secured by a mortgage, subject to an acceptance of the offer by the plaintiffs within a reasonable time. The offer was communicated on the same day to one C. H. Condee, who was acting for both parties in the negotiations for the sale and purchase of the land. The plaintiffs were residents of Missouri, and at the time of the offer were on their way to that state from California, which facts were known to the defendant. On the 6th of March, 1887, Condee wrote a letter to the plaintiffs, addressed to their residence, notifying them of the defendant’s offer, and at the same time sent them a note and mortgage drawn in compliance with the terms of the defendant’s proposal, and instructed them that in the event of their acceptance to sign, execute, and return the same, together with one third of the purchase price. On the 23d of March, Condee received a reply to his letter, accepting the defendant’s proposal, and returning the note and mortgage, and inclosing a draft for one third of the purchase price. On the same day Condee notified the defendant’s wife, who had been empowered by him to act as his agent in the matter, of the plaintiffs’ acceptance, and on the 29th of the same month tendered her the note, mortgage, and one third of the purchase-money. She refused to accept the same, because the mortgage had not been acknowledged so as to entitle it to be recorded. On the following day, with her consent, the mortgage was returned to the plaintiffs for proper acknowledgment. On the 17th of April, 1887, the defendant’s wife surrendered possession of the land to the plaintiffs, who have since been in possession thereof. On the same day Condee received from the plaintiffs the mortgage properly acknowledged, and on the 19th of April, 1887, again tendered it, together with the note and one third of the purchase price, to the defendant, and demanded the delivery of the deed. The defendant refused to accept or deliver the deed, whereupon the plaintiffs brought this action for a specific performance of the contract of sale. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which, and from an order refusing a new trial, the defendant appealed.
    
      O. J. Perkins, and Wicks & Ward, for Appellant.
    
      Powell & Rowell, for Respondents.
   The Court.

We find no error in the rulings upon the evidence.

We are of opinion that the communication to and acceptance by plaintiffs of the proposal of defendant to sell the land in controversy were all within a reasonable time, and that the same is true of the compliance of plaintiffs with the proposal so accepted by them.

Judgment and order affirmed.