Bagley v. Eaton

California Supreme Court

Bagley v. Eaton

5 Cal. 497

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 497 (Bagley v. Eaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bagley v. Eaton, 5 Cal. 497 (Cal. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

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]*501The 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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]*501The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagley-v-eaton-cal-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack