Bagley v. Eaton
Bagley v. Eaton
5 Cal. 497
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.