BESSINGER v. GROTZ

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

BESSINGER v. GROTZ.

Civ. 13282.

Decided: June 26, 1942

James R. Jaffray, of Los Angeles, for appellant. Robert N. Baker, of Santa Monica, for respondent.

By petition for rehearing appellant points out that the findings state the exact price, the amounts and times of monthly payments and the rate of interest specified in the contract of sale made by defendant, and the judgment decrees that payments under that contract are for the use and occupation of the property in question, from which appellant seeks to draw the conclusion that no judicial action remains to be done by the referee or the court. But the findings do not state the amount of money received by the defendant under this contract, nor do they find that the defendant has received no other sums for use and occupation of the land. Hence there are matters yet to be determined by the referee, and since the judgment provides for a settlement of the accounting taken by the referee, it obviously contemplates further judicial action by the court in making such settlement.

The petition of appellant for rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.

SCHAUER, P. J., WOOD, J., and SHAW, J. pro tem., concur.