Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Hart
Before: Henshaw
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
HENSHAW, J.
This was an action to recover certain annual payments alleged to be due under a contract made between plaintiff and defendant (whereby plaintiff agreed to furnish water for use upon defendant’s land), and to foreclose the lien upon this land in accordance with the terms of the contract. Defendant pleaded non-execution of the contract, and further pleaded its incompleteness, and prayed for its reformation. The contract declared as follows:—
“The party of the second part, for himself, his heirs and assigns, covenants and agrees that he and his successors in interest and estate in said land will pay annually to the party of the first part, at their office, in gold coin of the United States, on the first Monday in September of each year, until the year 1920, and during the existence of said corporation, the sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00), the first payment to be made..............................and this instrument shall be deemed equivalent to notice. ...”
The reformation for which defendant contends was that it was mutually understood and agreed that the blank space should be filled by inserting the words, “after the said party of the second part should require and use water in the irrigation of said lands,” or words of similar import.
Upon the trial the court found against the defendant’s contention, and gave judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals. Most of the propositions advanced upon the appeal must be taken as conclusively answered by the cases of
Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company
v.
Rowell,
80 Cal. 116, [13 Am. St. Rep. 112, 22 Pac. 53];
Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company
v.
Dunbar,
80 Cal. 530, [22 Pac.
275];
and
Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company
v.
Park,
129 Cal. 427, [62 Pac. 87].
The contracts under consideration in the foregoing cases were in all important particulars identical with that in the case at bar, and the propositions advanced were, after elaborate discussion, decided in those cases against the contention of appellant here.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)