Tompkins v. Bacon

California Supreme Court

Tompkins v. Bacon

1 Cal. Unrep. 836

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1874

DocketNo. 3826

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 836 (Tompkins v. Bacon) 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

Tompkins v. Bacon, 1 Cal. Unrep. 836 (Cal. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

McKINSTRY, J.

— This action was brought upon an express contract for the demise of the premises described in the complaint. It is alleged that the plaintiff, as, administrator, continued in the possession of the lands and improvements described until the -day of June, 1866, “when plaintiff rented the same to the above-named defendant at the rate of six hundred dollars per annum. That on said - day of June, defendant promised and agreed to pay plaintiff said sum of six hundred dollars per annum as rent for the said lands and improvements.” That under said agreement defendant entered into possession, etc.

The court below held that the agreement alleged was not made or entered into, and that the defendant did not enter under it. As the evidence was substantially conflicting, the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Crockett, J.; Niles, J.; Wallace, C. J.

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

McKINSTRY, J.

— This action was brought upon an express contract for the demise of the premises described in the complaint. It is alleged that the plaintiff, as, administrator, continued in the possession of the lands and improvements described until the -day of June, 1866, “when plaintiff rented the same to the above-named defendant at the rate of six hundred dollars per annum. That on said - day of June, defendant promised and agreed to pay plaintiff said sum of six hundred dollars per annum as rent for the said lands and improvements.” That under said agreement defendant entered into possession, etc.

The court below held that the agreement alleged was not made or entered into, and that the defendant did not enter under it. As the evidence was substantially conflicting, the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Crockett, J.; Niles, J.; Wallace, C. J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tompkins-v-bacon-cal-1874.