Statute of Frauds—Pleading Written Contract Unnecessary.—In an action on a contract required by the statute of frauds to be in writing, the complaint need not allege that it was in writing. When the complaint alleges the making of the contract, the law presumes it was valid, and if the defendant relies on the statute he must plead it in his answer.

Corporations—Admission of Corporate Existence—Defense of Failure to Pay License Tax—Burden of Proof.—In an action by a California corporation, an averment in the answer of the plaintiff’s corporate existence and its engagement in business, is an admission of its capacity to sue, and is a waiver of proof that it is a corporation. Under such pleadings, the defendant, if it relies upon the fact as a defense, must show the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the provisions of the act imposing a license-tax upon corporations. It was not incumbent on the plaintiff, merely because nonpayment of the license-tax was pleaded in the answer, to prove its payment in order to establish its right to maintain the action.

Id.—Pleading Failure to Pay License-Tax—Forfeiture of Corporate Existence.—In pleading such defense, it is not sufficient to merely allege “that the plaintiff has wholly failed to pay the license or any of the licenses required to be paid by the provisions of the act.” A forfeiture of corporate existence under that act is not effected unless the acts required to be performed by the secretary of .state and the governor in proclaiming the forfeiture have been performed in the manner required, and the performance of such acts must be alleged.

Sale—Damages for Breach by Seller—Purchaser’s Duty to Minimize Loss.—A purchaser, where a seller has violated his contract, is charged with the general duty of doing every -reasonable thing to minimize his own loss and thus reduce the damages for which the seller has become liable by bis breach.

Id.—Acceptance under Insufficient Delivery—Waiver of Seller’s Breach of Contract.—A purchaser of a large quantity of boxes, which were to be paid for as delivered, is justified in receiving those furnished, even though deficient in number and not up to standard in quality, where the time available was too short for their examination, and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to replace them. Under such circumstances, the acceptance of the insufficient delivery was not a waiver of the seller’s breach of the contract.

Id.—Failure to Pay for Installment—Arbitration to Determine Dispute—Acceptance of Award.—The failure of the purchaser to pay for an installment of the boxes delivered did not avoid the contract, where a dispute arose between the parties as to the sufficiency of the prior deliveries, which was referred to an arbitration, acceptable to both parties and fully executed by the judgment of the arbitrator and by the payment and acceptance of his award, without sign of protest from either party.

Id.—Damages fob Failure to Deliver—Plaintiff’s Beadiness to Perform—Proof of Beadiness.—In an action by a purchaser to recover damages for the failure of the seller to deliver the goods contracted for, the plaintiff must prove that he was ready, able, and willing to perform the contract on his part. But where the insolvency of plaintiff is not charged, and where the defense is not in any way based upon such inability, very slight proof will fill the requirement.

Id.—Pleading Consideration for Contract—Absence of Demurrer.— An averment in the complaint in such action, that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to receive the goods contracted to-be sold, “and to pay for them at the price called for by said contract and in accordance with the terms thereof,” is a sufficient allegation of consideration, in the absence of either a special or general demurrer.

Id.—Damages for Breach—Value in Nearest Market—Purchase at Less Price in Other Market.—In such action, the provision of section 3354 of the Civil Code, that in estimating damages, the value is deemed to be the price at which an equivalent thing could be bought in the market, “nearest to the place” where delivery ought, to have been made, is designed wholly for the protection and benefit, of the seller-in default; and where it appears that the damages for which the seller was liable were decreased, and the judgment against. him lessened, by a purchase in another market, it will not be held that the purchase was to his injury, or in violation of law.