Balfour

Balfour v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.

Good Law
123 Cal. 395·1899 Cal. LEXIS 1085·55 P. 1062
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 1899Sac. No. 302California1,367 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This appeal is from a judgment and from an order refusing a new trial. It is the second appeal in the case. The first was taken by the plaintiff and will be found reported in Balfour v. Fresno Canal Co., 109 Cal. 221 , where a more detailed statement of the facts can be found than is deemed important here. The language of the contract is there stated, and it was determined that such language was fairly susceptible of two constructions, without doing violence to its usual and ordinary import on any established rule of construction, and that, therefore, there was an ambiguity to explain which it was competent to show the surrounding circumstances and how the parties understood its terms as manifested by their declarations during the negotiations which preceded the execution of the contract.

The only ruling discussed in the opinion relates to the exclusion of the conversations between the president of the defendant corporation and the plaintiff. The court held that the trial court erred in striking out the evidence on motion of the defendant, and for such error the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Upon the new trial, the same evidence was offered and…

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.