Reynolds v. Jourdan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. The plaintiffs brought their action of assumpsit for work and labor done, and material furnished in the erection of a brick house for defendants in the city of Sacramento.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. The plaintiffs brought their action of assumpsit for work and labor done, and material furnished in the erection of a brick house for defendants in the city of Sacramento. The defendant, in his answer, sets up a written contract for the erection of the building in a good and workmanlike manner, by the terms of which, the building was to be finished by the 20th of August, 1852, except the iron doors and window blinds, which were to be furnished when they arrived from New York. The contract specifies dimensions of walls, floors,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
1. Where the entire performance of a special contract has been prevented by one of the parties, or where its terms have been afterwards varied by the agreement of both parties, the action for the amount due for work and labor should be in the form of indebitatis assumpsit, and not upon the contract. In such ease the contract may be introduced in evidence by either party as an admission of the standard of value, or as proof of any other fact necessary to the recovery, and should be…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Castagnino v. BallettaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Nev. Cty. & Sacramento Canal Co. v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.