Russel v. Amador
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Third Judicial District. The petition of the plaintiff set forth, that the defendant entered into his obligation, in writing, on the 25th day of October, 1850, to convey to plaintiff two thousand varas square, of land (describing it), on the ranch of said defendant, and to run parallel with a hill, &c., embracing a new corral, &c., the said plaintiff to pay the said defendant $2000 as set forth; and in case plaintiff paid the above sum, defendant was to call…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Third Judicial District. The petition of the plaintiff set forth, that the defendant entered into his obligation, in writing, on the 25th day of October, 1850, to convey to plaintiff two thousand varas square, of land (describing it), on the ranch of said defendant, and to run parallel with a hill, &c., embracing a new corral, &c., the said plaintiff to pay the said defendant $2000 as set forth; and in case plaintiff paid the above sum, defendant was to call a surveyor and run the lines, and make and deliver to plaintiff a good and sufficient warrantee deed; and plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, Chief Justice
Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.
Upon the trial of this cause, which was a bill in chancery for specific performance, the defendant’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury that “ The acceptance of payment by Amador, the defendant, from Russel, the plaintiff, under a protest that the contract incorrectly described the land intended to be conveyed, cannot be construed into a waiver of any rights which Amador claimed to have, to defend against Russel’s claim for a larger amount of land than that which Amador claimed to have conveyed,” which instruction was refused and the court charged the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Boyce v. California Stage Co.California Supreme Court · 1864
- Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Wilder v. BeedeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006