Habenicht v. Lissak
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The action was brought for breach of the following written contract of sale, the claim for which was assigned by Hughes & Co. to the plaintiff:— “San Francisco, 316 California Street, “June 22, 1881. “We have this day bought from Messrs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The action was brought for breach of the following written contract of sale, the claim for which was assigned by Hughes & Co. to the plaintiff:— “San Francisco, 316 California Street, “June 22, 1881. “We have this day bought from Messrs. Hughes & Co., on account of Mr. A. H. Lissak, Jr., seven hundred and twenty thousand (720,000) Liverpool return grain sacks, at six and one half cents (6£ cts.) each, cash on delivery, in United States gold coin, in parcels as required,…
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
This is an action for a breach of contract upon sale of a large number of bags. They were sold to the defendant by Hughes & Co., and were to be delivered by Rogers, Meyer, & Co., who held them in pledge for a debt due to them from Hughes & Co. The claim of Hughes & Co. was assigned by them to the plaintiff.
The defendant did not pay for the bags as he agreed to do, and they were sold at auction by the firm who held them in pledge. The price they brought was credited upon the debt which Hughes & Co. owed to Rogers, Meyer, & Co., and became a payment pro tcmto to Hughes & Co., and this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mills v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- In Re WilkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Everton v. ParkerWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- International Harvester Co. of America v. PottSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Grange Co. v. Farmers' Union & Milling Co.California Court of Appeal · 1906