Cunningham v. Breed

4 Cal. 384
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1854
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Cal. 384 (Cunningham v. Breed) 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
Cunningham v. Breed, 4 Cal. 384 (Cal. 1854).

Opinion

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

The defendants object that they ought not to pay the damages which they contracted to pay, because the business which they enjoined, and for which damages are claimed, was a public nuisance. This is the first time I have heard of such a defense to avoid the obligations of a contract.

A legitimate occupation is sometimes a public nuisance, but a party is nevertheless entitled to the fruits of his labor, until an abatement takes place in some proper form. A gunpowder mill may be a public nuisance, but this would [386]*386not allow one who had purchased powder to set it up in defense against the recovery of the purchase money. The defense here is just as absurd, when examined, as in the case by which it is illustrated.

Judgment affirmed with ten per cent damages.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Cal. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-breed-cal-1854.