Bainbridge

Bainbridge v. Lachenmaier

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 560·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 988·11 P.2d 671
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 19, 1932Docket No. 748.California1,254 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Scovel, J.

The complaint in this action alleges that on March 3, 1931, defendant employed plaintiff to drill a water-well at a specified price per lineal foot, the defendant to furnish all pipe and casing; that the well was drilled to a depth of 423 feet, but that defendant refused to pay for the same. Defendant filed his answer and a pleading designated a cross-complaint, admitting that the contract for drilling the well had been entered into, but alleging that the contract was in writing dated December 15, 1930, and providing for completion of the well not later than March 5, 1931. That under and pursuant to such contract plaintiff started the drilling of a well on or about February 7, 1931, drilling the same to a depth of 246 feet. That said well was drilled in such negligent and careless manner that plaintiff was forced to discontinue the drilling thereof and that on March 3, 1931, the written contract was modified by an oral agreement wherein plaintiff agreed to drill a new well under the same terms and conditions set forth in the written contract. It was further alleged that by the terms of the oral agreement plaintiff should pull the casing placed in the first well and that the same…

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.