Vorwerk

Vorwerk v. Nolte

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1124·87 Cal. 236·25 P. 412
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 20, 1890No. 13470California701 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fox, J.

Upon rehearing and reargument of this case, a fact is conceded which was before sufficiently apparent to be suspected, but not sufficiently so, from the record as printed here, to justify action upon it as a fact proved; viz., that the original contract between the parties was partly written and partly printed; that in preparing it, the parties had used a form printed in blank, in common use in the preparation of contracts for the sale of real property, where deferred payments were to be made; and that the words “ time is of the essence of this contract,” as found therein, was a portion of the printed and not of the written matter. If, therefore, there is any doubt about how the contract is to be construed, the rule prescribed in section 1651 of the Civil Code is to be applied in the construction thereof. Applying this rule, and it appearing not only that the contract was partly written and partly printed, but that the printed part was prepared without special reference to these particular parties or this particular'1 contract, the question is, whether these words so found in the printed part are repugnant to the general scope and purpose of the contract as the same appears from…

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.