Schweikert v. Seavey

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 554
• 62 P. 600
• 1900 Cal. LEXIS 1096

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Conflicting Evidence.—Where the Trial Court Finds for defendant on conflicting evidence, such finding will not be disturbed on appeal, though the evidence would have justified a verdict for plaintiff.</p> <p>Lease—Extension.—Plaintiff Leased Land to Defendant for a certain period, before the expiration of which plaintiff told defendant that he could have the land for another like period, the defendant agreeing to cut plaintiff’s crops as a part consideration for the extension; and subsequently plaintiff said that he would not go back on Ms word, and that, as the ground was low, and not in shape for planting, defendant “could summer-fallow it.” Part only of the land was summer-fallowed by defendant before the expiration of the original lease. Held, that the summer-fallowing of the ground was not a condition precedent to the extension of the lease, since it was a mere suggestion by plaintiff, and a matter of no concern to Mm, since he was not to be paid a crop rental.1</p> <p>Lease—Rescission or Repudiation.—Civil Code, Section 1689, provides that contracts may be rescinded only in cases where the consent of the party rescinding is obtained by fraud, duress or undue influence; or failure of consideration through fault of party as to whom the contract is rescinded; or on such consideration becoming entirely void from any cause; or if the consideration, before it is rendered, fails in a material respect; or by consent of all the parties. Section 1691 declares that the rescinding party must restore or offer to- restore the value he has received under the contract. Plaintiff leased certain land to defendant for a certain period, before the expiration of which he told defendant he might have it for another like period, and subsequently acknowledged to plaintiff that he told him he might have the land, but that his word was worthless, and that he could not have it. Held, that this did not amount to a rescission of the contract, but was a mere repudiation.</p> <p>U