Moulton v. Loux
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, County of Colusa. The complaint contained two counts, one for twenty-three hundred and fifty dollars laid out by plaintiff at defendant’s request and for his use, and one for fifteen hundred dollars for work and labor performed for the defendant. The answer denied each allegation of the complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, County of Colusa. The complaint contained two counts, one for twenty-three hundred and fifty dollars laid out by plaintiff at defendant’s request and for his use, and one for fifteen hundred dollars for work and labor performed for the defendant. The answer denied each allegation of the complaint. The Court found that the plaintiff had laid out for the use of the defendant, and at his request, the sum of fourteen hundred and fifty dollars, and gave the plaintiff judgment for that amount. Prior to September 15th, 1874, W. H. Parks and…
1Opinion of the Court
argued that the evidence showed that the plaintiff did not expend the money for the defendant’s use.
A. L. Hart and Creed Haymond, for the Respondent.
The defendant having broken his contract, the plaintiff might have maintained his action for damages for the breach thereof, or he was at liberty to waive the tort, treat the contract as rescinded, and maintain his action on the common counts for money laid out and expended and for labor performed. (Parsons on Contracts, 5th ed. pp. 678, 679; Keys v. Harwood, 2 C. B. 905; Planche v. Colburn, 8 Bing. 14.)
*83Whenever a contract of any hind has been…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Flournoy v. FlournoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Huddleston v. WashingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Barrera v. BarreraCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956
- Union Collection Co. v. SnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Magee v. BreckenridgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952