Ruiz v. Norton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. On the second trial of this case, after the reversal of the . judgment before reported, the counsel for the plaintiffs opened, by stating (after reading the pleadings), that they would prove the due execution of the contract of sale, set forth in the complaint; and that, when it was executed, the ship “Glyde,” with a cargo of two thousand bags of Peruvian rice on board, was lying in the harbor of San Francisco, consigned to…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. On the second trial of this case, after the reversal of the . judgment before reported, the counsel for the plaintiffs opened, by stating (after reading the pleadings), that they would prove the due execution of the contract of sale, set forth in the complaint; and that, when it was executed, the ship “Glyde,” with a cargo of two thousand bags of Peruvian rice on board, was lying in the harbor of San Francisco, consigned to Godeffroy, Sillem & Co., who were the duly authorized agents of the plaintiffs (who resided out of this State), for the sale of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneeldt
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
When this case was here before, we reversed the judgment upon the ground that the defendants were not allowed to prove the unsoundness of the article delivered, and we held that if the unsoundness was established, the plaintiff could not recover upon the contract; but, to the extent of the delivery of the rice, he might recover its value upon the common counts. Upon this decision, we see no reason why the District Court should have granted a nonsuit upon the proof proposed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Note. — This opinion was delivered at this Terra. Tho…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Moore v. McKinlay & GarriochCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855