Berry

Berry v. Kowalsky

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 795·95 Cal. 134·30 P. 202
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 18, 1892Nos. 13116, 13309California487 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

"There are two appeals in this case, upon distinct records. No. 13116 is from the final judgment, and upon the judgment roll. No. 13309 is from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, upon a record consisting of a statement of the case in addition to the judgment roll.

“ On the appeal from the judgment, it is contended that the court erred in overruling the defendant’s de *136 murrer to the complaint, and that the findings do not support the judgment. On the appeal from the order, the errors assigned are errors of law occurring at the trial.

(The foregoing is adopted from the opinion of Commissoner Vanclief, delivered in Department.)

It is testified that the phrase “ S/87 wheat,” used in the contract sued on, is an abbreveiation which origi *141 nated in the call board, where, from the necessities of business, such a phrase is understood to mean what it would take quite a numbej of words to express in detail. It was testified by most of the witnesses that “ S/87 wheat ” meant that the seller was to have the season of 1887 in which to complete his contract, and that it meant also that the wheat should be “ number one white wheat.” There was also testimony to the…

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.