Silva v. Bair
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County. G. W. Hunter, Judge. The main facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The instruction as to growing crops related to a growing crop of beets, which the plaintiff claimed was included in his sale to the defendant. The substance of it is embodied in the syllabus.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
Plaintiff, on May 10, 1900, entered into the possession of a dairy ranch in Humboldt County, belonging to defendant, under an agreement to lease the same, with certain personal property thereon, for a term of five years, at a rental of $166.66 per month. The lease was prepared, but was not executed by either party. In October, following his entry on the premises, plaintiff became dissatisfied with the lease, and so announced to defendant, and it was agreed between them, that if the plaintiff could find some one to take the lease off his hands, defendant would let such person have it.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by14 opinions
- Glogau v. HaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Miller v. Village of MullanIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Alvord v. BanfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Ames v. BellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Benson v. Superior Court of Napa CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.