Haines

Haines v. Stilwell

Good Law
1895 Cal. LEXIS 1124·5 Cal. Unrep. 27·40 P. 332
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 30, 1895No. 15,828California1,228 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This action was brought by Haines to recover from Stilwell $6,293.65, with interest. The cause of action was single, but was stated in different forms in the complaint: First, for money loaned; second, for money had and received; and the third count set out a contract in writing made March 30, 1891, whereby defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to buy one-half of the capital stock of the Stoney Creek Improvement Company, a corporation, defendant then being the owner of all the stock of said corporation. Certain payments were made thereon by plaintiff, the particulars of which need not be stated in this connection. The stock was not to be delivered until fully paid for, and none of it was delivered. On or about August 12, 1891, .the parties thereto, under date of April 15, 1891, indorsed upon said contract the following: “We do hereby mutually agree that this contract is and shall be null and void”—and signed their names thereto; and it was alleged that defendant promised and agreed to repay to the plaintiff all moneys he had paid or advanced under said contract. The issues raised by defendant’s answer were tried by the court, without a jury, and findings and judgment were…

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.