Stanton v. Singleton

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 129
• 54 P. 587
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 1067

Syllabus

<p>Mining Contract—Parties and Signing.—Where a Contract Granting an option to purchase a mine was signed by two of three co-owners, and an action to enforce it was brought against the signers, the burden was on them to show, as claimed, that the contract was not to be operative unless signed also by the other owner, who was named therein.</p> <p>Mining Contract—Delivery,—An Allegation That Defendants “made and entered into” the agreement sufficiently imports delivery as against a general demurrer, in an action for specific performance.</p> <p>Mining Contract—Mutuality.—A Contract Whereby Plaintiff was Given an option to purchase an interest in a mine for a certain price on performing certain conditions is not void for want of mutuality, so that it cannot be specifically enforced, where plaintiff notified the other parties thereto of his election to perform his part thereof.1</p> <p>Specific Performance—Tender.—Under Civil Code, section 1440, allowing a party to an obligation which the other party repudiates before a default has occurred to enforce the obligation without performing or offering to perform the conditions in favor of the other, the refusal to allow a party to an option contract to perform the conditions of it, together with a repudiation of the contract prior to the expiration of the option, releases the holder of the option from tendering the price to be paid under it prior to suing for specific performance.</p> <p>Specific Performance—Parties.—A Mine Owner Who Did not Sign an option contract executed by his two co-owners is not a necessary party to an action to enforce the contract, where there is nothing to show that he is not willing to carry out the agreement, and no relief is sought against him.</p>