Sanford

Sanford v. E. RiverSide Irrigation Dist.

Good Law
101 Cal. 275·1894 Cal. LEXIS 1025·35 P. 865
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 1894No. 19290California1,525 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Searls, J.

Action to recover for work and labor in sinking a well, and damages for violation of a contract.

*276 Plaintiff had judgment for $2,300.35 and costs, from which judgment and an order denying a motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

There are two counts in the complaint, in each of which the same contract is set out. One is to recover for services rendered under such contract, the other to recover damages on account of defendant’s refusal to comply with the terms of the contract, and to permit plaintiff’s assignors to prosecute work thereunder.

On the twelfth day of November, 1891, the corporation defendant, as the party of the first part, entered into the contract in question with J. E. Sanford & Co., as parties of the second part. .

The contract recites that defendant has published proposals for bids for sinking one or more artesian wells upon its lands, known as the Garner and McKenzie places, on Lytle creek, San Bernardino county, California; that Sanford & Co. have filed bids to sink said wells, and that defendant has, by resolution of its board of directors, awarded to them the contract for sinking five wells, and has authorized its president and secretary to sign 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.