Keys v. Mother Lode Extension Mines Inc.

California Supreme Court

Keys v. Mother Lode Extension Mines Inc.

24 P.2d 363, 218 Cal. 542, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 537

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1933

DocketDocket No. Sac. 4543.

StatusPublished

This text of 24 P.2d 363 (Keys v. Mother Lode Extension Mines Inc.) 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

Keys v. Mother Lode Extension Mines Inc., 24 P.2d 363, 218 Cal. 542, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 537 (Cal. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PRESTON, J.

The record presents a judgment-roll appeal by defendants from a decree of foreclosure in favor of plaintiffs upon certain mining property in Tuolumne County. The sole question presented is whether the complaint fails to state a cause of action by the omission therefrom of appropriate allegations averring the performance of certain precedent and concurrent conditions and covenants found in the agreements of the parties, which are exhibits to the complaint, and in which is contained the mortgage in question.

The answer to the contention is that the covenants and conditions alluded to are neither precedent nor concurrent with the money obligation sued upon. The obligation to pay is definite and certain. The obligation to surrender certain documents and other property, and to pro *543 cure reconveyance under a deed of trust, was to follow only upon a precedent act of appellants, to wit: the procuring by them of an abstract of title showing ownership of title to the mining property in appellant corporation (subject to certain specified exceptions). Until this was done no obligation existed on the part of respondents.

Thus we have a ease where an independent covenant is sued upon and no relief is asked concerning covenants which are mutual or concurrent. The complaint, therefore, is not defective (Fresno Canal etc. Co. v. Perrin, 170 Cal. 411 [149 Pac. 805]); hence the conclusion above announced.

Langdon, J., Curtis, J., Thompson, J., Seawell, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.

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

PRESTON, J.

The record presents a judgment-roll appeal by defendants from a decree of foreclosure in favor of plaintiffs upon certain mining property in Tuolumne County. The sole question presented is whether the complaint fails to state a cause of action by the omission therefrom of appropriate allegations averring the performance of certain precedent and concurrent conditions and covenants found in the agreements of the parties, which are exhibits to the complaint, and in which is contained the mortgage in question.

The answer to the contention is that the covenants and conditions alluded to are neither precedent nor concurrent with the money obligation sued upon. The obligation to pay is definite and certain. The obligation to surrender certain documents and other property, and to pro *543 cure reconveyance under a deed of trust, was to follow only upon a precedent act of appellants, to wit: the procuring by them of an abstract of title showing ownership of title to the mining property in appellant corporation (subject to certain specified exceptions). Until this was done no obligation existed on the part of respondents.

Thus we have a ease where an independent covenant is sued upon and no relief is asked concerning covenants which are mutual or concurrent. The complaint, therefore, is not defective (Fresno Canal etc. Co. v. Perrin, 170 Cal. 411 [149 Pac. 805]); hence the conclusion above announced.

Langdon, J., Curtis, J., Thompson, J., Seawell, J., and Waste, C. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 P.2d 363, 218 Cal. 542, 1933 Cal. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keys-v-mother-lode-extension-mines-inc-cal-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack