The opinion
SPENCE, J.
I concur in the judgment. Regardless of the question of whether plaintiffs were entitled to the claimed credit of $700, the judgment in favor of defendants must be affirmed for the reason that plaintiffs failed to make out a case for specific performance.
*10 It is well settled that a person is not entitled to specific performance in the absence of pleading and proof that the contract is just and reasonable, and that the consideration is adequate. (Civ. Code, § 3391; Haddock v. Knapp, 171 Cal. 59, 62 [ 151 P. 1140 ]; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co., 163 Cal. 182, 196 [ 124 P. 817 ]; Quann v. Kraseman, 84 Cal.App.2d 550, 551 [ 191 P.2d 16 ]; Foley v. Cowan, 80 Cal.App.2d 70, 74 [ 181 P.2d 410 ]; Mayers v. Alexander, 73 Cal.App.2d 752, 762 [ 167 P.2d 818 ]; Dessert Seed Co. v. Garbus, 66 Cal.App.2d 838, 844 [ 153 P.2d 184 ]; Eichholtz v. Nicoll, 66 Cal.App.2d 67, 69 [ 151 P.2d 664 ]; Remmers v. Ciciliot, 59 Cal.App.2d 113, 116 [ 138 P.2d 306 ]; Page v. Brown, 122 Cal.App. 12, 19 [ 9 P.2d 895 ].)
Plaintiffs failed to meet the burden thus imposed upon them, as they introduced no evidence whatever to show the value of the property. The trial court, therefore, properly made findings in favor of the defendants on the above-mentioned material issues. (Remmers v. Ciciliot, supra; Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail, 11 Cal.2d 501, 543 [ 81 P.2d 533 ]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1981.) Since these findings alone support the judgment, it is unnecessary to discuss the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the remaining findings (Sands v. Eagle Oil & Refining Co., 83 Cal.App.2d 312, 321 [ 188 P.2d 782 ]) or the question of the rights of plaintiffs to the claimed credit of $700.
Carter, J., and Schauer, J., concurred.
Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied June 30, 1949. Carter, J., voted for a rehearing.