Bancroft

Stone v. Bancroft

Good Law
112 Cal. 652·1896 Cal. LEXIS 727·44 P. 1069
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 21, 1896S. F. No. 171California2,028 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This action is brought to recover upon a written contract for fourteen months’ salary, at the rate of three hundred and fifty dollars per month, commencing upon January 1, 1892. The verdict of the jury was in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint, and also a special demurrer to the point that the complaint was ambiguous, uncertain, and unintelligible in various particulars. The consideration of this demurrer leads us to an examination of the contract made by these parties, for that contract is set out in full in the complaint. The material parts thereof recite:

“ This agreement, made in San Francisco, California, by H. H. Bancroft and N. J. Stone, witnesseth: That in consideration of the valuable services done by the said Stone in conducting the publication and sale of the historical works of the said Bancroft, the business formerly being conducted as the Bancroft Works Department of A. L. Bancroft & Co., but now being done and shortly to be incorporated under the laws of California as the History Company, the said Bancroft hereby sells and assigns to the' said…

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.