Mahoney v. Aurrecochea
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, County of Alameda. ’ The complaint averred that the plaintiffs were husband and wife; that the plaintiff Antonio and the defendant Francisco and other persons were tenants in common in the ownership of the rancho “ Los Positas,” in Alameda County; that in October, 1872, defendant Francisco leased to defendant Case a portion of the rancho described by metes and bounds, containing one hundred and forty-three and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, County of Alameda. ’ The complaint averred that the plaintiffs were husband and wife; that the plaintiff Antonio and the defendant Francisco and other persons were tenants in common in the ownership of the rancho “ Los Positas,” in Alameda County; that in October, 1872, defendant Francisco leased to defendant Case a portion of the rancho described by metes and bounds, containing one hundred and forty-three and ninety-four one-hundredths acres, and said lessee agreed to pay for the same one-fifth, in the sacks, of all the produce grown…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
Assuming in favor of the plaintiff, that the decree in partition operated an assignment to the female plaintiff of all the rights which Aurrecochea held under the agreement made with the defendant Case, it is not in terms averred in the complaint that the crop was harvested after the entry of the decree in partition. If it was harvested before that time, the plaintiffs have no claim to that portion of it which Case had agreed to deliver to Aurrecochea. As to how the fact was in this respect, cannot be satisfactorily ascertained by construction of the exceedingly loose averments…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hohn v. PaulyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Haines v. SnedigarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895