Lattin

Lattin v. Hazard

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 1051·91 Cal. 87·27 P. 515
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 1891No. 14266California799 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment against them on demurrer to their complaint. It is their second appeal, the former ( 85 Cal. 58 ) being from a similar judgment. The complaint was amended so as to avoid the defect then pointed out, and is now questioned upon other grounds.

The action is to enforce specific performance of an *89 agreement between James McLoughlin, as party of the second part, and a number of persons who apparently owned, severally, various tracts of land in Los Angeles or the vicinity. Some of them agree to convey to him certain lands, and to give him the right of way for a street-railroad, in consideration of which he agrees to extend and operate his steam-dummy railroad through and by their lands on a route designated.

The party of the second part further stipulated “ that the road shall be well and substantially built, and operated by steam-dummy motive power for a period of not less than ten years, and shall have a carrying capacity and speed equal to all the requirements of the said section and the business thereof.” He further agreed that the fares should not exceed certain specified rates, “ and that the rate so established shall not be raised for a…

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.