Bagley v. Eaton
Before: Murray
Synopsis
The breach, of a bond for title, does not discharge the debt due for the purchase money.
The plaintiff on such breach, can either resort to a Court of Equity to enforce its performance, or maintain an action at law.
Where the parties to such a bond, stipulate among themselves for a forfeiture, such forfeiture cannot defeat the plaintiff’s rights to the purchase money.
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
The Court below erred in the conclusions of law from the facts found. The agreement between the parties, is nothing more than a bond for title, the breach of which does not discharge the debt.
[501]The plaintiff might either have resorted to a Court of Equity, to enforce its performance, or maintained an action at law; but the parties having stipulated among themselves for a forfeiture, such forfeiture cannot defeat plaintiff’s right to the purchase money.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
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)