Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. 64

Morrison v. Rossignol

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

Bill for a specific performance. Action tried by the Court below on an agreed statement of facts. The points in controversy are found distinctly stated in the opinion of the Court.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A court of equity is always chary of its power to decree specific performance, and will withhold the exercise of its jurisdiction in that respect, ■unless there is such a degree of certainty in the terms of the contract as will enable it at one view to do complete equity.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Walker v. Keith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably 43 Cal. 2d 280 - Ablett v. Clauson (1954), Agard v. Valencia (1870)

3 district · 22 state decisions

4018551860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Murray, C. J., concurred.

¶2A covenant for a lease to be renewed indefinitely at the option of the lessee, is, in effect, the creation of a perpetuity; it puts it in the power of one party to renew for ever, and is therefore against the policy of the law.

¶3Another and substantial objection to the enforcement of the clause of renewal in the lease disclosed by the record, consists in the want of any certain basis for the ascertainment of the rent to be paid. It says the rent shall be stipulated according to the value of the property. But who is to fix the value of the property ? Certainly each party would have the right to do it for himself, in the absence of any other stipulation. I know of no rule of law which can compel a party to change his estimate of the value of his property, when by contract he has the right to determine it for himself. A Court of Equity is always *66chary of its power to decree specific performance, and will withhold the exercise of its jurisdiction in that respect, unless there is such a degree of certainty in the terms of the contract as will enable it at one view to do complete equity. The maxim id certum est quod certum reddi potest, is here improperly invoked; for, governed by the language of the lease, there is no test by which certainty can be attained.

¶4The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/5/cal/64 · .json · Public domain