· 8/2/1889

Dunn v. Mackey

Citations

80 Cal. 104
22 P. 64
1889 Cal. LEXIS 869

Syllabus

Agent—Liability under Contract to Sell for Specified Amount.— An agent to sell real property, who expressly contracts to sell the same within a year for a specified amount, is liable in damages to his principal for a breach of his contract. Id.—Measure of Damages.—-In an action to recover for the breach of such a contract, the measure of damages is the difference between the actual value of the land at the end of the year and the amount the agent hound himself to realize from it. Id. — Attachment may Issue in Action fob Breach. — An attachment may be properly issued in such an action. Id.—Amount Due under Contract how Sufficiently Shown.—The amount actually due under the contract is sufficiently shown, for the purposes of the attachment, when the complaint alleges precisely what the damages are, and the affidavit in attachment states that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the same amount, upon an express contract for the direct payment of money. Id. — Action for Damages for Breach of Contract—When Attachment may Issue. —An attachment may issue in an action for damages for the breach of a contract, even when proof is necessary at the trial to show the amount of damages. But to authorize its issuance, there must exist a basis upon which the damages can be determined by proof.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that moving the defendant’s case forward expeditiously is a “countervailing consideration” to his choice of counsel
noting that the Indigent Defense Act requires the State, not the county, to fund death penalty defense for indigents
where both State and defense bore responsibility for delay, this factor “remain[ed] neutral”
trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds where assertion of the right and prejudice factors weighed against defendant notwithstanding that the trial court erred by failing to treat the reason for delay as neutral
trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds where assertion of the right and prejudice factors weighed against defendant notwithstanding that the trial court erred by failing to treat the reason for delay as neutral
“There is no dispute that the . . . delay . . . has crossed the threshold of presumptive prejudice . . . . Further, as the trial court found and the State does not dispute, the length of the delay should be weighed against the State.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Works

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.