Gold Mining & Water Co. v. Swinerton
California Supreme Court
1Dissent
EDMONDS, J., Dissenting.
Certainly there is substantial evidence to support- the finding of the trial court that the appellants repudiated the lease and did not take possession of the property. But assuming that the provision of their agreement requiring repair of the water system is an independent covenant unrelated to the requirement “to work a minimum of 300,000 yards of channel annually’’ and entitling the lessors to recover separately for its breach, I cannot agree with the conclusion of my associates as to the measure of damages for the breach of the obligation to do the required amount…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cuthill v. PeabodyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Milligan v. HaggertyMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
- Gopcevic v. California Packing Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1923
- Berwind-White Coal Min. Co. v. MartinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
- Coburn v. California Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.