Deacon

Deacon v. Blodget

Good Law
111 Cal. 416·1896 Cal. LEXIS 598·44 P. 159
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 2, 1896L. A. No. 28California347 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Britt, J.

C.—Plaintiff recovered judgment for the sum of eight hundred and thirty-five dollars and legal inter *418 est thereon from November 23,1893, found by the court to be due to him from defendant upon the following written instrument:

The complaint—filed March 21,1894—set out a copy of said instrument, and alleged its execution by defendant, and that no part of said sum of eight hundred and thirty-five dollars has been paid, but contained no averment that plaintiff had sold or endeavored to sell the land therein described. Defendant contends that the pleading was insufficient; that the contract imposed on plaintiff the obligation to use diligent effort to sell the land before the expiration of one year at forty-five dollars per acre or more, and that he should have alleged such effort in the complaint. This is so if such endeavor on the part of plaintiff is a condition precedent to the duty of defendant to pay said sum of eight hundred and thirty-five dollars, but we think it clearly is not such a condition. Stipulations in a contract are not construed as conditions precedent, unless that construction is made necessary by the terms of the contract. (Front Street etc. R. R. Co. v.…

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.