Court Opinion

ID: 9857942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:09:41.767247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:21.231039
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Second Motion For Rehearing.
It is with some hesitancy that we write on appellee’s second motion for á re-hearing. Our only justification for so .doing is to the end that we may perhaps clarify the views wé hold as to this case.
In substance it was stated in the original opinion that unless a mutual mistake existed at the time of the execution of the contract between the parties, then appellee should carry out its legal duty and is not entitled to assert a mutual mistake at the time of the execution of the deed. Cleghorn v. Zumwalt, 83 Cal. 155, 23 P. 294.
This written contract evidenced the express mutual assent of the parties thereto to the terms thereof. Prior to the execution thereof there is no evidence that appellant John W. Chanoux ever talked with any officer or agent of appellee. Ap-pellee contends the real meeting of the minds of the parties was not as to lot 12 *749but only as to a portion thereof. The evidence shows appellant never saw the property before he signed this contract. The evidence fails to show that he had a photograph of the property or description of same other than as to lot 12. Never having seen the property, can it be said he assented to take a piece of property other than lot 12? There being no prior oral agreement that Chanoux was to take anything other than lot 12, in our opinion it cannot be logically said that he mistakenly believed that the description lot 12 described something less than lot 12 as it actually existed.
Appellant’s second motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.