Tryon

Tryon v. Clinch

Good Law
1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 294·32 Cal. App. 150·162 P. 428
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 20, 1916Civ. No. 1801.California1,035 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

It appears that the defendants owned a tract of land through which they had opened a street, and prior to its dedication for public use they agreed, for their mutual advantage, that it should be improved. The ownership of the land was not joint, but held in severalty, Markham owning approximately two-thirds of the tract and the remainder being owned jointly by Clinch and See, who entered into negotiations with plaintiffs for doing the work of improving the street known as Morning Gate Court, as a result of which the latter caused to be delivered to Clinch and See a letter reading as follows:

<—followed by the word "Accepted.” On the day of the receipt of this letter Clinch and See attached their signatures thereto and ordered Tryon & Brain to proceed with the work. At this time the defendant Markham was not in California, and did not return to California until the latter part of September. Tryon & Brain proceeded with the work until September 7th, at which time, under instructions from Clinch and See, they discontinued the same, the value of which, as performed, the court found was the sum of $1,240. Upon Markham’s return to California on or about the twenty-fourth day 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.