Powell

Hammon Consol. Gold Fields v. Powell

Good Law
33 F.2d 898·5 Alaska Fed. 430·1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2857
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 15, 1929No. 5632California509 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The surrender of the lease or option by the appellant naturally gave rise to two questions: First, the liability of the appellant for damages resulting from the surrender; and, second, its liability for installments already accrued and OArerdue. The first question was not involved in the present action, and the court refrained as far as possible from expressing any opinion in regard to it. However, the appellant contended that a certain provision of the agreement between itself and the trust absolved it from liability for past-due installments, and the court was compelled to construe the provision to some extent at least in disposing of that contention. Perhaps the court went further than *431 was necessary for that purpose. The provision relied on,together with its context, reads as follows: “If Gold Fields shall fail to deposit minimum annual payments hereafter to accrue, or unpaid balance of purchase price and accrued interest, or vouchers in lieu thereof, at the times and in the manner as hereinbefore provided, and shall also fail to so deposit within thirty days after the Trust shall have given or shall have caused to be given written notice of default and demánd for payment…

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.