Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945)

Citation: Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945)
Parent Document: Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1945-12-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1114867/hagge-v-drew/ ↗

Full Text

1,148 chars

Assuming that a violation of that statute would render a transaction void, we do not believe it has any application to the instant case. The findings state that plaintiffs did subdivide the property pursuant to the contract and had 206 lots released. That speaks of a subdividing by plaintiffs not defendants. The contract was not a sale or offer to sell subdivided lands and the finding does not so interpret it. It was a sale of land which lent itself to subdivision but the subdividing was to be done by the plaintiffs and by them offered for sale. Prior to that sale by them the notice of intention required by section 20a should be given. The sale of the land under the contract of sale was of unsubdivided parcels. Under the contract the lands were not proposed to be subdivided for sale, that is, for the sale under the contract. They were proposed to be subdivided after the contract of sale and then sold as subdivided lands by plaintiffs. We take it that the statutory provisions quoted do not apply to a contract of sale by the owner to a subdivider who is to subdivide the property and sell it to the public. Moreover, the evidence *374

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text