Legal Opinion

Crow v. Hildreth

California Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1870No. 1,978Published

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

First — The complaint, if it shows any contract, did not show a breach of the contract by appellants. A breach of the contract by the party bound to perform is an essential part of the cause of action, and must be alleged in the complaint (Brown v.Orr, 29 Cal. 122), and must be stated in unequivocal language. (Moore v. Besse, 30 Cal. 570.)

The contract stated in the complaint is not a mere agreement for a lease, but is a present lease. (Thornton v. Payne, 5 Johns. 75; Hallett v. Wylie, 3 Johns. 47; Averill v.Taylor, 8 N.Y. 44.)

The right of respondents to the possession of the premises was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Averill v. . TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
  2. Grannis v. ClarkCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1827
  3. Hill v. GrigsbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Emmal v. WebbCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Crook v. ForsythCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API