Legal Opinion

Rolando v. Zesch

District Court, D. Alaska

Decided March 6, 1926No. 2999PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TOMEN, District Judge.

Why the pleader should allege only a part of the “covenant,” the promise to pay, without following the recitals in the lease, and showing that the defendants, lessees, were entitled to a “remittance” of, say, one-half of the amount, we can only conjecture. The provision for this payment, with its partial future remittance, immediately followed the promise to pay at a future date, $1,500 as a penalty or possible liquidated damages, in case of the breach of the covenants to mine in 1926. Is it not therefore likely that the promise to pay the $2,000 was also contingent upon…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Greeff v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  2. United States v. GratiotSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
  3. Ohio Oil Co. v. DetamoreIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Raynolds v. HannaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio · 1893
  5. Waskey v. ChambersSupreme Court of the United States · 1912

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Smalley v. Juneau Clinic Building CorporationAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Smalley v. Juneau Clinic Building CorporationAlaska Supreme Court · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API