Legal Opinion · Dissent

Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1896No. 19510Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County and from an order denying a new trial. W. B. Cope, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1DissentMcFarland, J.

I dissent, and adhere to the opinion delivered in Department. (Blood v. La Serena Land etc. Co., infra.) Section 2310 of the Civil *231Code must be construed, and has always been construed* by this court, in connection with the principle declared in section * 1589, that “a voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting”; and in section 2311, that “ ratification of part of an indivisible transaction is a ratification of the whole.” Of course, there…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gribble v. Columbus Brewing Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Burbank v. DennisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Rogers v. New York & Texas Land Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Wetherly v. StrausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Davis v. Rock Creek L. F. & M. Co.California Supreme Court · 1880

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API