Easton

Easton v. Cressey

Good Law
100 Cal. 75·1893 Cal. LEXIS 749·34 P. 622
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 13, 1893No. 18101California631 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment against him in favor of plaintiff for $1,000, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The facts found by the court are substantially as follows: On September 7, 1887, the parties made a written agreement, by which the appellant, Cressey, agreed to sell to respondent, Easton, a certain piece of land, upon these terms: Easton was to pay “ one thousand dollars cash deposit,” and on or before November 1, 1887, was to pay $2,500; and was also on said last-named day to execute a mortgage upon the land to Cressey for $3,320; then Cressey was to convey the land to Easton. It was provided in the agreement that if Easton should fail to pay the $2,500 on November 1st, “ then this contract shall be void so far as said Easton is concerned ”; and that the $1,000 cash should be retained by Cressey as “liquidated damages.” Easton paid the $1,000 when the contract was made, but did not pay the $2,500 on November 1st, because, as he says, Cressey was absent from home. Cressey, however, had left a deed conveying the land to Easton, in the bank of Modesto, at the city of Modesto, of which bank Cressey was president, to be delivered to Easton…

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.