Clunie v. Sacramento Lumber Co.

7 P. 708, 67 Cal. 313, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 627
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 19, 1885
DocketNo. 9753
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 7 P. 708 (Clunie v. Sacramento Lumber Co.) 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
Clunie v. Sacramento Lumber Co., 7 P. 708, 67 Cal. 313, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 627 (Cal. 1885).

Opinion

Foote, C.

The plaintiff seeks to enforce the specific performance of a verbal agreement by compelling the defendant to exe[314]*314cute a lease of certain premises for the term of five years. The findings of the court upon the facts, the evidence being conflicting, ought not to be disturbed unless something was improperly admitted which was injurious to the defendant.

It is claimed by counsel that the statements and declarations of Goodhue, the defendant corporation’s general manager, made after his verbal agreement to lease for his principal the premises about which this contention is had, were incompetent as evidence to bind such principal, since they were narrations of facts which occurred at the time the agreement was entered into.

The evidence discloses the fact that those declarations and statements on the part of Goodhue were made a year or two after the alleged parol agreement for the lease of five years was consummated by him for his principal with the plaintiff, and that they set out and stated the terms and tenor of such agreement as understood by the parties thereto at the time of its completion.

We are of opinion that it was not proper to admit in evidence such declarations so made by the agent, as they did not bind his principal, not being a part of the res gestos, and for this reason the judgment and order denying a new trial should be reversed, and a new trial granted.

Belcher, C. C., and Searls, C., concurred.

The Court. For the reason given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Related

Hogan v. Kelly
75 P. 81 (Montana Supreme Court, 1904)
Rulofson v. Billings
74 P. 35 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Haines
111 F. 337 (Eighth Circuit, 1901)
Mutter v. I. X. L. Lime Co.
42 P. 1068 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
La Rue v. St. Anthony & D. Elevator Co.
54 N.W. 806 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Ward v. Waterman
24 P. 930 (California Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 P. 708, 67 Cal. 313, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clunie-v-sacramento-lumber-co-cal-1885.