Pacific Rolling Mill Co. v. Riverside & Arlington Railway Co.

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 979·90 Cal. 627·27 P. 525
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1891No. 14333California2,139 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Yanclief, J.

Action to enforce specific performance of an alleged contract, by which the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendant to buy a certain street-railway situate in the city of Riverside, county of San Bernardino, and known as “ Seventh Street and Grandview Railroad.” Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.

At the time the agreement is alleged to have been made, the plaintiffs did not have the legal title to the road they offered to sell, but held a certificate of purchase at a sheriff’s sale, made under a decree enforcing a lien for the price of materials furnished to construct the road.

The only evidence of the agreement is a written correspondence between the parties by mail, the letters from plaintiffs being dated at San Francisco, and those from defendant at Riverside.

The appellant contends, among other things, that the correspondence does not prove a completed contract of sale.

The first letter of the correspondence is from defendant, dated October 22, 1888, as follows; “Will you sell *629 your Seventh Street road for five thousand dollars on six months’ time, with interest at the rate of eight per cent per…

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.