Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text

917 chars
Finally, it is suggested that the contract of sale is contrary to public policy because of the large difference between the price paid for the property by defendants and the selling price to the plaintiffs, the reasoning being that homes built on the property are financed through the Federal Housing Administration and priorities for materials are obtained from the Office of Price Administration; that the purchasers thereof will be unable to pay the loans on them because the land is priced too high; that as a result the government will be the loser; and that the transaction thus tended to defeat the purpose of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A., § 1701, et seq.). In that connection the cases of McAllister v. Drapeau, 14 Cal.2d 102 [92 P.2d 911, 125 A.L.R. 800]; Woods v. Kern County Mutual Bldg. & Loan Assn., 34 Cal.App.2d 468 [93 P.2d 837], and Richard R. Adams Co. v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.,