Maher v. Riley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. The defense, so far as can be gathered from the record, seems to have been that the failure to deliver the cattle was partly the fault of plaintiff and partly owing to the difficulty of collecting them from the plains. On the day on which they were to be delivered, according to the contract, plaintiff went to defendants’ ranch and demanded the cattle.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. The defense, so far as can be gathered from the record, seems to have been that the failure to deliver the cattle was partly the fault of plaintiff and partly owing to the difficulty of collecting them from the plains. On the day on which they were to be delivered, according to the contract, plaintiff went to defendants’ ranch and demanded the cattle. Defendants answered they were ready to deliver as soon as they could hunt them up, etc. Defendants also claim that plaintiff then gave them two days further…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
Suit was brought on an agreement for the sale of certain cattle. This agreement was evidenced by a memorandum in this form: “ January 24th, 1860, sold to Michael Maher forty head of heifers, two years old in spring, to be delivered to him as soon as we can *416collect them up off the plains—three weeks at the furthest— American heifers. The title we guarantee. C. & J. Riley.” The sum of about one thousand dollars was the consideration of this contract, it being the price agreed on and paid for the cattle. The complaint avers the breach of this agreement to deliver the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dabovich & Co. v. EmericCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rose v. FoordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892