Crosby v. Watkins
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Dudley v. Thomas (Cal. 1863)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
after stating the facts, deEvered the opinion of the Court—Baldwin, J., concurring.
Two questions are presented by the record: First, whether the plaintiff can sue in his own name on the contract; and second, whether
The first point is answered by the decision of this Court in Ruiz v. Norton, 4 Cal., 855.
Upon the second point, Mr. Parsons, in his work on Contracts, vol. 1, p. 449, states the rule to be as follows: “ In every sale, unless otherwise expressed, there is an implied condition that the price shall be paid before the buyer has a right to possession; and that is a condition precedent. But it seems, that in an action for non-delivery, the buyer need only aver that he was ready and willing to receive and pay for them, and a refusal to deliver, without averring an actual tender.”
In such cases, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the actual value of the article sold. 2 Parsons, 481, note A.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.