Legal Opinion

Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Hart

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1907No. S.F. No. 4372PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This was an action to recover certain annual payments alleged to be due under a contract made between plaintiff and defendant (whereby plaintiff agreed to furnish water for use upon defendant’s land), and to foreclose the lien upon this land in accordance with the terms of the contract. Defendant pleaded non-execution of the contract, and further pleaded its incompleteness, and prayed for its reformation. The contract declared as follows:—

“The party of the second part, for himself, his heirs and assigns, covenants and agrees that he and his successors in interest and estate in said land will…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. RowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. DunbarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. ParkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Perkins v. West Coast Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. BashorIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. William Ede Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. William Ede Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Fresno Canal Etc. Co. v. William Ede Co.California Supreme Court · 1907

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API