Legal Opinion
Crane v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 22, 1935No. Civ. 4920PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
On rehearing we are persuaded there is evidence to support the judgment for damages on the doctrine of anticipatory breach of the contract.
The complaint originally included two counts. The second count referred exclusively to a demand for alleged damages to the land of George S. Bloss, Jr., which was subsequently dismissed. This appeal will therefore be considered as though C. A. Crane were the only plaintiff in the action.
The defendant has appealed from a judgment of $19,200, which was rendered against it pursuant to a verdict returned in a suit for damages based on anticipated…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- City of Santa Ana v. HarlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Yolo Water & Power Co. v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Crow v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Overton v. Vita-Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Guerrieri v. SeveriniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- East Side Canal & Irrigation Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1948
- Story v. San Rafael Military AcademyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A.California Court of Appeal · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.