Callender v. McLeod
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Dissent
Hayne, C., dissenting.
The case is, perhaps, a close one; but I do not think the case is one of exchange, as supposed by my associates. There was nothing in existence to exchange for the seed wheat. It was expressly agreed that the plaintiff was to take two sacks for one out of the crop, and that as no crop was produced, he was to get nothing. If that contingency happened,— that is to say, if no crop was produced,—how could there be an exchange? By the first agreement the parties were tenants in common of the crop. (Bernal v. Hovious, 17 Cal. 542; 79 Am. Dec. 147; Knox v. Marshall, 19 Cal.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Knox & Requa v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862