From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDonald v. Bernard

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Dec 21, 1927
87 Cal.App. 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)

Opinion

Docket No. 6048.

December 21, 1927.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County. Ross Campbell, Judge. Modified and affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Eugene F. Conlin for Appellant.

Geary Geary for Respondent.


This is a separate appeal by the plaintiff from the same judgment considered in McDonald v. Bernard, ante, p. 717 [ 262 P. 430], and particularly from that portion of the judgment which denied plaintiff interest on the sum recovered from the date of performance to the rendition of the judgment. The appeal is taken on a separate typewritten transcript.

[1] The contract called the plaintiff's assignors to procure the acceptance of defendant's proposal to exchange real properties. Written acceptance of this proposal was procured by them on November 19, 1920. Defendant's obligation to pay for the services became fixed as of that date and, as the amount was determined by the contract, interest should have been allowed from that time. ( Gray v. Bekins, 186 Cal. 389, 399 [ 199 P. 767]; Civ. Code, sec. 3287)

The judgment is modified by adding after the word "action" in the last line thereof the following: and interest on said sum of $3,000 from November 19, 1920, at the rate of 7% per annum." Appellant to have his costs on this appeal.

Koford, P.J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.


Summaries of

McDonald v. Bernard

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two
Dec 21, 1927
87 Cal.App. 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Case details for

McDonald v. Bernard

Case Details

Full title:J.F. McDONALD, Appellant, v. J. BERNARD, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two

Date published: Dec 21, 1927

Citations

87 Cal.App. 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
262 P. 431

Citing Cases

Prahm v. Pickford Real Estate, Inc.

But that dispute over liability does not impact the prejudgment interest analysis. Because the amount of…

Prahm v. Pickford Real Estate, Inc.

But that dispute over liability does not impact the prejudgment interest analysis. Because the amount of…