Legal Opinion

Forderer v. Schmidt

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 13, 1907No. 1,399PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge

Error is assigned to the instructions given by the court on the subject of the tender. In 2 Parsons on Contracts (9th Ed.) 639, it is said of a tender: “It need not be made by the defendant personally. If made by a third person at his request it is sufficient, and, if made by a stranger without his knowledge or request, it seems that a subsequent assent of the debtor would operate as a ratification and make the tender good.”

The language of the text is supported by reference to Harding v. Davies, 2 C. & P. 78, Read v. Goldring, 2 M. & S. 86, and Kinkaid v. Brunswick, 11 Me. 188. In the case…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bennett v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  2. Tacey v. IrwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  3. Atwood v. WeemsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. Kincaid v. School District No. 4Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9050 W Warm Springs 2079 v. Nev. Ass'n Servs.Nevada Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Backus v. WestOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Long v. ZirkleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. E. J. Struntz Planing Mill Co. v. PagetOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  5. North Coast Mortgage Investment, Inc. v. DunningCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991

1 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