Cox v. McLaughlin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, in the Third District Court, County of Alameda. The argument of counsel, and a statement of the case will be found in the report of the case in 52 Cal. 590.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
The judgment appealed from is against defendant McLaughlin alone. The contract on which the plaintiffs must rely—being that set forth in the answer of defendant McLaughlin—was held to he an “ entire contract ” in Cox v. W. P. R. R. Co. 44 Cal. 18. Assuming that the failure to pay, as alleged, constituted a breach of the contract, the plaintiffs could have treated the specific contract as rescinded, and have brought suit on the *606implied promise of defendant to pay the value of the work actually done.
That the present is not an action on the implied promise is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dillon v. . AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Cox v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by32 opinions
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Alderson v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern Refining Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Empire Investment Co. v. MortCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Porter v. the Arrow Head Reservoir Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.