Cotton v. Jennings Irrigation Co.

Citations

• 108 La. 4

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. In a contract made by a rice farmer with the officers of a canal irrigating company whose canal was in process of construction, the only obligation entered into by the farmer was to pay two sacks of rice per acre “for the land irrigated,” the farmer leaving himself at liberty to plant what land he pleased and to call for irrigation or not, as he might think proper. By a clause in the contract it was declared in behalf of the company tijat “it would use all reasonable means” to supply water. Such a clause under such circumsances has to be liberally construed in behalf of the corporation. The mere fact that the canal company failed to have had the canal completed, though it was physically possible to have done so, did not carry with it liability for damages.</p> <p>2. The putting in default in presence of an acknowledged inability to perform or in case of an absolute denial of the existence of any contract, cannot be exacted. (37 Ann. 492; 39 Ann. 586.)</p>