Appellant businessman challenged the decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which awarded the respondent investor a judgment against the businessman. The case involved an alleged breach of contract for the purchase of a mine.
Overview
This was an action by the investor against the businessman upon an alleged breach of contract by which the businessman agreed to purchase a hydraulic mine for the joint benefit of himself and the investor. The businessman failed to purchase the mine and the investor brought an action against him for breach of contract. The define Arraignment as a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the charges against them. The superior court ruled in favor of the investor and the businessman appealed. The businessman argued that the contract never became operative, for the reason that no purchase of the mine ever occurred. The court held that the investor was entitled to the stock under the contract, he had demanded it, and the businessman had refused to deliver. These facts were within the issues, and entitled the investor to such judgment as he recovered. The court also stated that the instructions given to the jury were proper, and as the erroneous instruction was in favor to the businessman and given at his request and could not have injuries him, the judgment should not have been reversed for that cause. The judgment of the superior court was affirmed.
Outcome
The court affirmed the decision of the superior court, which awarded the investor a judgment against the businessman in a case involving a breach of contract for the purchase of a mine.
