Dabovich & Co. v. Emeric
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth District, County of San Francisco. This was an action in the Court below for a breach of, contract. The plaintiffs, who are fruit dealers in San Francisco, purchased of the defendant, for the sum of four hundred dollars, sixteen-fortieths of the pears growing in a certain orchard. After such sale, the defendant, for the consideration of fifty dollars, executed the following guaranty: “ Having this day sold to Messrs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth District, County of San Francisco. This was an action in the Court below for a breach of, contract. The plaintiffs, who are fruit dealers in San Francisco, purchased of the defendant, for the sum of four hundred dollars, sixteen-fortieths of the pears growing in a certain orchard. After such sale, the defendant, for the consideration of fifty dollars, executed the following guaranty: “ Having this day sold to Messrs. Nicholas Dabovich & Co. three shares and one-fifth of one share of the pears standing on the trees of the orchard of San Pablo, which orchard is divided…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
This controversy, which has been going on a long time, and been heretofore before this Court, grew out of a contract in these words :
“ Having this day sold to Messrs. Dabovich & Co. three shares and one-fifth of one share of the pears standing on the trees of the orchard of San Pablo, which orchard is divided into eight shares, I hereby guarantee to said Nicholas Dabovich & Co., that the said three shares and one-fifth of one share of said pears will be at their disposal on the trees, free from trouble and annoyance from other parties to them.
“ (Signed,) Jos. Emeric.
“June 14th, 1856.”
When the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Andrus v. BlazzardUtah Supreme Court · 1901
- Plunkett v. Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie & Atlantic Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
- Maher v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Fosdick v. GreenOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1871