Parkhurst

Bradford v. Parkhurst

Bad Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 907·96 Cal. 102·30 P. 1106
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1892No. 14745California776 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

— This appeal is from a judgment and an order refusing a new trial.

The action is for money had and received for plain *104 tiff’s use, and for interest on “divers sums forborne by-plaintiff to defendant at his request.”

The statement shows that between January 9 and March 31, 1888, defendant executed to plaintiff and his assignors seven contracts for as many distinct parcels of land.

The contracts are alike, and are in the form of receipts for specified sums of money, part of the purchase price, followed by a recital as follows: “Leaving a balance .... to be paid on said purchase, which, by the terms of this sale, is to be paid in three equal payments, with interest.at the rate of ten per cent per annum till paid, in like gold coin, within six, twelve, and eighteen months from date hereof. If paid as above stated, with all taxes, assessments, and charges of every nature that are or may be levied thereupon before the final payment and costs of conveyance, the above-named W. Bradford will be entitled to a deed for the above-described lot; otherwise this agreement becomes null and void, and the amounts now paid, together with all improvements on said land made, shall be…

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.