Englander v. Rogers

41 Cal. 420
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1871
DocketNo. 2,231
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 41 Cal. 420 (Englander v. Rogers) 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
Englander v. Rogers, 41 Cal. 420 (Cal. 1871).

Opinion

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

The demurrer to the complaint ought to have been sustained. On the facts averred in the complaint, the payment of the remainder of the purchase money by the plaintiff, and the execution and delivery of a proper deed of conveyance by the' defendant, were concurrent acts, to be simultaneously performed. The covenants of the vendor and vendee were mutual and dependent, and neither could put the other in default, except by tendering a performance on his own part, unless the other party either waived the tender, or, by his conduct, rendered it unnecessary. To entitle the plaintiff' to maintain the action on the contract set out in the complaint, he should have averred a tender of the unpaid portion of the purchase money, or some sufficient excuse for the omission to tender it. The only allegation of the complaint on this point is that the plaintiff' “ has been ready and willing during all the time aforesaid, and has offered to accept and take said conveyance, pursuant to said agreement, and to pay the balance of said purchase money.” This is not an averment that he tendered the purchase money. To constitute a valid tender in such a ease, the party must have the money at hand, immediately under his control, and must then and there not only be ready and willing, but produce and offer to pay it to the other party, on the performance by him of the requisite condition. '(15 Wend. 637; 6 id. 22, n. a. 35; [423]*423Strong v. Blake, 46 Barb. 227.) There is in this complaint no sufficient averment of a tender, nor of any excuse for the omission, and the demurrer ought to have been sustained on this ground.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with an order to the Court below to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

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

Related

Noyes v. Habitation Resources, Inc.
49 Cal. App. 3d 910 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Gray v. Southerne
264 P. 328 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Malmberg v. Baugh
218 P. 975 (Utah Supreme Court, 1923)
Stelson v. Haigler
63 Colo. 200 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1917)
Smith v. Egan
150 N.W. 290 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Reed v. Witcher
137 P. 294 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Moody
198 F. 7 (Ninth Circuit, 1912)
Griesemer v. Hammond
123 P. 818 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Michigan Home Colony Co. v. Tabor
141 F. 332 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Arnett v. Smith
88 N.W. 1037 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Stakke v. Chapman
83 N.W. 261 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)
Phelps v. Brown
30 P. 774 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Naftzger v. Gregg
31 P. 612 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Merrill v. Merrill
30 P. 542 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Anderson v. Strassburger
27 P. 1095 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Newton v. Hull
27 P. 429 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Dennis v. Strassburger
26 P. 1070 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Heine v. Treadwell
13 P. 503 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Hicks v. Lovell
27 P. 942 (California Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 Cal. 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/englander-v-rogers-cal-1871.