Griffiths v. Henderson (1875) · DecisionDepot

Griffiths v. Henderson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1875 No. No. 4,346Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the complaint's averment of performance was sufficient under the statute and that the trial court correctly interpreted the contract as requiring the lessor to provide a sufficient number of cattle to stock the leased dairy farm.

Issues

Whether the complaint's averment of performance was sufficient to withstand a general demurrer.
Whether the trial court erred in its interpretation of the contract regarding the lessor's obligation to furnish cattle.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This is a compliance with the statute, and the objection that the pleading is insufficient is not well taken, unless the contract sued on is void.”

“it would seem to have been the intention of the parties to it that all of the lands were to be used as a dairy farm— the lessor furnishing kine, in proper number and quality, for carrying into effect the main design of the agreement.”

Synopsis

Complaint pob Violation op Oontbact.—In a complaint for damages for violation of a contract containing mutual covenants, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to state the facts showing the performance of conditions precedent on his part, but he may state generally that he duly performed all the conditions on his part.

Constbuotion op Lease.—If a lease of a tract of land, to be used as a dairy farm, binds the lessor to furnish cows that are fit for dairying, “the number not limited, ” the lessee to pay a fixed sum per year for each cow, it will be construed as binding the lessor to furnish cows sufficient in number to stock the land leased.

Demuebee.—A demurrer to the entire complaint is not well taken, if the complaint contains two counts, and one count contains a cause of action.

By the Court, McKinstry, J.: The general demurrer was to the whole complaint. The second count contains an averment that the defendant “ duly performed all the conditions of the contract on his part to be kept and performed.” This is a compliance with the statute, and the objection that the pleading is insufficient is not well taken, unless the contract sued on is void.

The District Court charged the jury, in effect, that by the terms of the written agreement the defendant promised to furnish “ female cattle ” sufficient in number to stock the land leased.

We cannot say this was an error. The word “ limited,” in the clause “the number not limited,” may be construed to be the equivalent of “fixed” or “specified.” To construe the contract as authorizing the plaintiff to fix the number, would place in his hands the power of securing the use of the premises for the term of five years, for a rent merely nominal. Taking the instrument as a whole, [571]it would seem to have been the intention of the parties to it that all of the lands were to be used as a dairy farm— the lessor furnishing kine, in proper number and quality, for carrying into effect the main design of the agreement.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.

Griffiths v. Henderson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief