Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Cal. 53

Vance v. Dingley

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1859

California Supreme Court · decided 1859-07-01

There is no necessity for any statement of facts. The question turned upon the charge of the Court below as stated in the opinion. The jury found for defendant, judgment accordingly, and plaintiff appeals.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1923

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Baldwin, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, J. concurring.

¶2This case was brought to recover damages for the alleged violation of a contract to grind certain wheat, and deliver the flour on demand, upon the payment of the price agreed upon for grinding the wheat. The question turned upon the disputed fact, whether any tender was made of the price. The Court charged the jury, that a tender of the price was not necessary before the action could be maintained. No unconditional tender seems to have been made of the money. On the contrary, the agent of the plaintiff appears to have withdrawn the money, and the parties agreed to meet again, at a subsequent period, to arrange, or endeavor to arrange, the matter in dispute.

¶3*54On looking over the record, we are unable to see any error of law or fact upon which we could reverse the judgment.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/14/cal/53 · .json · Public domain