Shoemake

Shoemake v. F. H. Woodruff & Son, Inc.

Good Law
1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1215·227 Cal. App. 2d 587·38 Cal. Rptr. 817
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 1964Civ. No. 338California3,464 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conley, J.

This is the second appeal in this litigation. (Hayman v. Shoemake, 203 Cal.App.2d 140 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 519 ].) The plaintiffs, Louis Hayman and George Covert, who are not parties to the appeal, bought from the defendants and cross-complainants a field of onions and thereafter sued them for damages because of the breach of their express warranty that the onions were Asgrow Y-50’s, a specific variety which had previously produced excellent crops in the San Joaquin Valley. A cross-complaint was filed by the defendants, Shoemake and Gnesa, against F. H. Woodruff & Son, Inc., the corporation which had sold the identical seed to defendants and cross-complainants on an earlier but similar warranty.

The amount originally awarded to the plaintiffs in the superior court as against the defendants was the sum of $66,182.68, and the cross-complainants were given judgment against the seed company and its employee in the sum of $93,523.68. The defendants did not appeal from the judgment awarded to plaintiffs as against them, and it long since has become final. In the earlier opinion, this court held that it was improper for the.trial court to add routinely the damages awarded on the complaint to…

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.