Bagley v. Eaton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. The defendants were sued as administrators of the estate of Grove C. Mickle, deceased. The action was brought upon three promissory notes, amounting in the aggregate to §6,580, given by Mickle to Bagley and Sinton.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. The defendants were sued as administrators of the estate of Grove C. Mickle, deceased. The action was brought upon three promissory notes, amounting in the aggregate to §6,580, given by Mickle to Bagley and Sinton. The consideration of the notes, and the circumstances under which they were given, are as follows: Mickle entered into a contract with Bagley and Sinton for the purchase from them of a certain lot in San Francisco. The price agreed upon, was $14,000. Mickle paid on account, some §8,420, and…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
The Court below erred in the conclusions of law from the facts found. The agreement between the parties, is nothing more than a bond for title, the breach of which does not discharge the debt.
*501The plaintiff might either have resorted to a Court of Equity, to enforce its performance, or maintained an action at law; but the parties having stipulated among themselves for a forfeiture, such forfeiture cannot defeat plaintiff’s right to the purchase money.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gilpin County Mining Co. v. DrakeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1885
- Battey v. BeebeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879