Ruddock Co. v. Johnson

Good Law
1902 Cal. LEXIS 891·6 Cal. Unrep. 846·67 P. 680
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1902L. A. No. 998California694 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Gray, J.

Action for damages for breach of an agreement by defendants to purchase plaintiff’s crop of peaches, estimated at twelve tons or more. The defendants had judgment, and this appeal is by plaintiff from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

Appellant attacks the finding of the court to the effect that no contract or agreement was entered into between plaintiff and defendants. It appears that the contract or agreement for the purchase of plaintiff’s peaches was in writing, and for a price much in excess of $200. It was signed by defendants only by the hand of their alleged agent, Prince by name. The contract of sale, being for a price of more than $200, was within the statute of frauds, and it was therefore necessary that it should be in writing. It was also necessary to show that the authority of the agent executing the contract in the name of the defendants was also in writing, or else present facts in some way taking the ease out of the statute of frauds. It seems to be conceded that Prince had no authority in writing to sign the contract for defendants. It is contended, however, on behalf of appellant, (1) that defendants by their acts were estopped to deny the agency of…

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.