Moore

Moore v. Heron

Good Law
108 Cal. App. 705·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 254·292 P. 136
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 1, 1930Docket No. 247.California1,738 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Barnard, J.

This is an action for specific performance. The plaintiffs, after alleging that Mary E. Heron is the owner of the land involved herein, allege that an agreement was entered into, reading as follows:

They further allege that through inadvertence this agreement was not signed by Mary E, Heron, but that she thereafter orally ratified and affirmed all of the provisions thereof; that within sixty days they expended the sum of $1500 in prospecting for ores and minerals upon the land in question, in accordance with the terms of the agreement; that they discovered a vein of gold and silver assaying $14.-22 per ton; that on or about March 1, 1927, they demanded of the defendants the execution and delivery of a mining lease in accordance with the terms of the agreement; and that compliance with their demand was refused by the de fendants. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the court, without leave to amend. From the judgment which followed this appeal is taken.

Appellants, apparently following the arguments raised upon the hearing of the demurrer, urge that the agreement set up in the complaint is not void for want of mutuality; that the consideration was just and…

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.