Cull

Cull v. San Francisco & Fresno Land Co.

Good Law
124 Cal. 591·1899 Cal. LEXIS 1039·57 P. 456
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 1, 1899S. F. No. 1107California932 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Britt, J.

Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that defendant employed him to summer fallow certain land, between four hundred and five hundred acres in area, and to plow and sow in wheat another parcel of eighty acres, both tracts being the property of defendant; he prayed judgment for the alleged value of such services. By its answer defendant denied that plaintiff did any of said work under its employment.

As nearly as we can ascertain from the evidence in the record the following facts appeared at the trial, without conflict; For several years next prior to and including the' cropping season of 1895-96 plaintiff farmed “on shares” it seems, a tract of some two thousand acres of land owned by defendant, which included the parcel of eighty acres last mentioned in the complaint. In February, 1896, he entered into an agreement with defendant whereby he undertook to summer fallow the four hundred acres *592 and upward, first described in Ms complaint, lying outside of the tract he had previously farmed, and defendant agreed to advance certain cash toward paying the wages of men and for the feed of teams to be engaged in the work. Other conditions of this arrangement were stated in the…

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.