Lauritsen v. Goldsmith (1929)

(Ferran v. Mulcrevy (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 129, 131-132 [ 48 P.2d 948 ]; and see Devens v. Goldberg (1948) 33 Cal.2d 173, 181 [ 199 P.2d 943 ]; Tomlinson v. Kiramidjian (1933) 133 Cal.App. 418, 422-423 [ 24 P.2d 559 ]; Lauritsen v. Goldsmith (1929) 99 Cal.App. 671, 676 [ 279 P. 168 ]; and discussion Espinoza v. Rossini (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 40 , 55- *798 56 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 205 ]; and Gibson v. Southern Pac.

(Zellner v. Wassman, 184 Cal. 80, 84, 87 [ 193 P. 84 ]; Morrison v. Land, supra [ 169 Cal. 580 ( 147 P. 259 )], pp. 586, 590; Ruble v. Richardson, 188 Cal. 150,154 [ 204 P. 572 ] ; Lauritsen v. Goldsmith, 99 Cal.App. 671, 675 [ 279 P. 168 ]; Burr v. Floyd, 137 Cal.App. 692, 696 [ 31 P.2d 402 ].) Equity follows the law and, when the law determines the rights of the respective parties, a court of equity is without power to decree relief which the law denies. (10 R.C.L., p. 382…

(Long v. Rumsey, 12 Cal.2d 334, 342 [ 84 P.2d 146 ]; Reeves v. Vallow, 16 Cal.2d 95 [ 104 P.2d 1017 ] ; Lloyd v. Kleefisch, 48 Cal.App.2d 408, 413 [ 120 P.2d 97 ] ; Mitchell v. Towne, 31 Cal.App.2d 259, 263 [ 87 P.2d 908 ] ; Wax v. Adair, 16 Cal.App.2d 393, 396 [ 60 P.2d 904 ] ; Burr v. Floyd, 137 Cal.App. 692, 696 [ 31 P.2d 402 ] ; Lauritsen v. Goldsmith, 99 Cal.App. 671, 675 [ 279 P. 168 ] ; cf. Mayborne v. Citizens T. & S. Bank, 46 Cal.App. 178, 189 [ 188 P, 1034 ].) Cora…

Bank [ 46 Cal.App. 178 ] ( 188 P. 1034 ), supra.) “When services are rendered by one person, from which another derives a benefit, although there is no express contract or agreement to pay for the services, there is a ‘presumption of law’ which arises from the proof of services *624 rendered, that the person enjoying the benefit of the same is bound to pay what they are reasonably worth.” (Moulin v. Columbet, 22 Cal. 508, 509 .) ’ ” See, also, Lundberg v. Katz, 44 Cal.App.2d…

The rule is clearly stated in Lauritsen v. Goldsmith, 99 Cal. App. 671, 675 [ 279 Pac. 168 ], as follows: “It is also contended by respondents that a cause of action upon quantum meruit would be barred by the statute of limitations with the exception of that part of the claim which arose during the last two years preceding the death of decedent.

In Manford v. Coats, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 743, 748, 749 [ 45 Pac. (2d) 395 ], the court said: "Appellant refers us, however, to the case of Giles v. Reed, 44 Cal. App. 367 [ 186 Pac. 614 ], where the court refused to receive evidence of the reasonable value of services, but in that case the agreement was to compensate plaintiff by devising a specific parcel of real property, and no claim was based on the implied contract, whereas, in the instant ease, the agreement was to see th…

(Zellner v. Wassman, 184 Cal. 80, 84, 87 [ 193 Pac. 84 ] ; Morrison v. Land, supra, pp. 586, 590 ; Ruble v. Richardson, 188 Cal. 150, 154 [ 204 Pac. 572 ] ; Lauritsen v. Goldsmith, 99 Cal. App. 671, 675 [ 279 Pac. 168 ] ; Burr v. Floyd, 137 Cal. App. 692, 696 [ 31 Pac. (2d) 402 ].) Equity follows the law and, when the law determines the rights of the respective parties, a court of equity is without power to decree relief which the law denies. (10 R C.

Cas. 1913A, 479]; Zellner v. Wassman, 184 Cal. 80 [ 193 Pac. 84 ]; Warder v. Hutchison, 69 Cal. App. 291, 296 [ 231 Pac. 563 ]; Lauritsen v. Goldsmith, 99 Cal. App. 671, 675 [ 279 Pac. 168 ].) Not only does the law, under the circumstances disclosed by the record herein imply a promise to pay the reasonable value of the services but the implication of the law is that payment shall take place upon the termination of the services.

The rule announced in Lauritsen v. Goldsmith, 99 Cal. App. 671, 672 [ 279 Pac. 168, 170 ], disposes of the point now under discussion.