Reed

Reed v. Hickey

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 136·1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 214·109 P. 38
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 1, 1910Civ. No. 683.California6,123 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

This is an action to recover the balance of the consideration mentioned in a certain contract for the sale of certain placer mining property situated in Calaveras county. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the -order denying their motion for a new trial defendants appeal. The question now here rests chiefly upon the interpretation, to be given to the agreement in the light of the circumstances surrounding the parties and their conduct and acts at the execution of the agreement and subsequent thereto.

It is set forth in the complaint that on April 29, 1907, and for many years prior thereto, plaintiff was the owner of the property in question, called the Eeed Drift mine; that on that day one J. B. King was and had been the agent of defendants in negotiating for a contract for the sale and purchase of said mine, and upon, that day plaintiff entered into an agreement in writing with said King, for said defendants, the material provisions of which are as follows: Eeciting the fact of plaintiff’s ownership and setting forth a description of the mine;, the contract recites that second party “is desirous of an option to purchase said property for the agreed purchase price of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.