Legal Opinion

Ruiz v. Norton

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1854PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from tbe Fourth Judicial District. This was au action brought by the plaintiffs Ruiz, against the defendants, Norton & Oo., to recover the sum of $23,000 with interest, from January 21, 1853. The complaint showed that on or about the 22d day of December, 1852, the defendants made and entered into the following contract, in writing, with the plaintiffs, through Godeffroy, Sillem & Oo., their agents: [356] *“ Bought of Messrs.

Read the full summary

Appeal from tbe Fourth Judicial District. This was au action brought by the plaintiffs Ruiz, against the defendants, Norton & Oo., to recover the sum of $23,000 with interest, from January 21, 1853. The complaint showed that on or about the 22d day of December, 1852, the defendants made and entered into the following contract, in writing, with the plaintiffs, through Godeffroy, Sillem & Oo., their agents: [356] *“ Bought of Messrs. Godeffroy, Sillem & Co., (2000) two thousand bags Peruvian Rice, of 100 lbs. each, more or less, as per sample, and the rice warranted sound, at the price of (12J)…

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

In this ease the plaintiffs sue upon a written contract, wherein one of their stipulations is to deliver the defendants a certain quantity of sound rice.

It will not be disputed that every one must be held bound by the plain and obvious meaning of his engagements. The plaintiffs, to maintain their action, must show that they have done all which they agreed to do. But in this suit they failed to show that the rice was sound, and the defendants were not allowed to show that it was unsound. ■

This omission was a…

2Cited by21 opinions

  1. Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Brawthen v. H & R BLOCK, INC.California Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. McConnell v. East Point Lard Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  4. Hogen v. KlaboNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Hunt v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858

16 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