Schlitz v. Akers
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.
Action brought by plaintiff to recover the sum of $7,550 alleged to be due from defendants under the terms of a written contract for the drilling of oil-wells. Defendants defended on the ground that plaintiff did not substantially perform his part of the contract, and that therefore no recovery could be had. Plaintiff’s excuse for the alleged nonperformance is that defendants first breached the contract. The case was tried before the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $7,200. From this judgment defendants prosecute this appeal.
The contract…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Marogna v. MitchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951