Bagley v. Eaton
California Supreme Court
Bagley v. Eaton, 5 Cal. 497 (Cal. 1855)
Murray
Bagley v. Eaton
Opinion of the Court
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
The Court below erred in the conclusions of law from the facts found. The agreement between the parties, is nothing more than a bond for title, the breach of which does not discharge the debt.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- DAVID T. BAGLEY v. CORNELIUS J. EATON, and others
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The breach, of a bond for title, does not discharge the debt due for the purchase money. The plaintiff on such breach, can either resort to a Court of Equity to enforce its performance, or maintain an action at law. Where the parties to such a bond, stipulate among themselves for a forfeiture, such forfeiture cannot defeat the plaintiff’s rights to the purchase money.