In Hupp v. Lawler, the plaintiff alleged that he entered into a written contract with the defendant to organize and promote a corporation to develop an undeveloped granite quarry on the defendant's land in exchange for an undivided half-interest in the land and equal shares of majority stock in the corporation. The plaintiff claimed he performed by organizing the corporation, securing customers and investors, and incurring over $3,000 in expenses, but the defendant refused to convey the land, preventing further progress. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the contract was not subject to specific performance because it required a succession of acts involving ongoing supervision, a third-party corporation not joined in the suit, and lacked mutuality. The court further held that damages could not be awarded in lieu of specific performance absent a sufficient basis for equitable relief.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the conviction of two American citizens, Entriken and Thompson, for conspiracy to violate California's Alien Land Act by facilitating an ineligible alien's lease of real property through a dummy lessee. The majority upheld the convictions, but this dissenting opinion disagreed, arguing that dismissal of charges against the alien Takahashi improperly shifted the burden of proving citizenship or eligibility onto the citizen defendants, who lacked the ability to meet it, contrary to the Act's design and the rule of convenience applied in People v. Osaki. The dissent further reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove the alien's ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt using reliable evidence, instead relying on accomplice testimony and statements that did not establish the corpus delicti, and that the district attorney's remarks about prior statements by the alien constituted prejudicial error not cured by instruction.

criminal lawimmigrationproperty

In this case, plaintiff Rollins L. Dee and defendant J. C. Forkner Fig Gardens, Inc. executed a written memorandum in 1923 for the purchase of four lots in Fresno County for $20,000, with $2,000 paid upfront and a refund guarantee of the amounts paid (plus 7% interest) after three years if demanded. After the defendant tendered two different extended form contracts that the plaintiff refused to sign, the plaintiff demanded the refund in 1926 and sued for money had and received under the memorandum. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $2,853.14, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the memorandum was a complete, unambiguous contract not subject to variation by parol evidence, that the plaintiff had not agreed to the additional terms in the tendered forms, and that any interest payment issues were either waived or moot under the memorandum's terms. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the writing was merely an incomplete receipt or that the plaintiff was bound by unexecuted agreements.

propertyprocedure

In Gustafson v. Byers, the plaintiff sued a sheriff for the value of an automobile ($850) plus damages for loss of use ($500) after the sheriff attached the vehicle as property of a judgment debtor, rejected the plaintiff's third-party ownership claim, and sold it at execution. The defendant sheriff contended the prior transfer from the debtor to the plaintiff was fraudulent for lack of consideration and without immediate or continued change of possession. The trial court found the sale valid, the attachment wrongful, and awarded the plaintiff $1,350; the appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence supported the findings of a bona fide transfer and that damages for detention properly included the reasonable value of the automobile's use under Civil Code section 3336 when it exceeded interest.

propertyproceduretorts & liability