Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

How created.

ат

[ocr errors]

between a State and an individual, or between indi-
viduals only. *
The obligations imposed and
the rights acquired by virtue of the contract cannot be
impaired." This is supported by the best authority.—
See Green vs. Biddle, 8 Wheat., p. 1; Fletcher vs.
Peck, 6 Cranch, p. 87; Providence Bank vs. Billings
et al., 4 Pet., p. 514; Dartmouth College vs. Wood-
ward, 4 Wheat., p. 518; Tuolumne Redemption Co. vs.
Sedgwick, 15 Cal., p. 515; State of Cal. vs. McCauley,
15 Cal., p. 429.

But the Legislature of a State may alter or abridge
the term of an office of purely legislative character,
increase or diminish the salary of the incumbent dur-
ing his term, or repeal the law creating such office; and
this is not within the constitutional inhibition.--Myers
vs. English, 9 Cal., p. 341; Cohen vs. Wright, 22 Cal.,
p. 320; People vs. Haskell, 5 Cal., p. 537; Attorney
General vs. Squires, 14 Cal., p. 17; Brodie vs. Camp-
bell, 17 Cal., p. 20; Connor vs. City of N. Y., 1 Selden,
p. 285; Warner vs. The People, 2 Denio, p. 272; Field
vs. The People, 2 Scammon, p. 79; Dall vs. The Gov-
ernor, 3 Stewart, p. 387; see, also, "Contracts," post.

1428. An obligation arises either from:
1. The contract of the parties; or,
2. The operation of law.

[ocr errors]

TITLE II.

INTERPRETATION OF OBLIGATIONS.

CHAPTER I. General Rules of Interpretation.
II. Joint or Several Obligations.

III. Conditional Obligations.
IV. Alternative Obligations.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION.

SECTION 1429. General rules.

rules.

1429. The rules which govern the interpretation General of contracts are prescribed by Part II of this Division. Other obligations are interpreted by the same rules by which statutes of a similar nature are interpreted.

NOTE.-Obligations may be divided into three classes, arising respectively out of contract, common law, or statute. Those which are imposed by the common law explain themselves, their interpretation being a part of their essential nature. Contracts are interpreted by rules which differ materially from the rules governing the interpretation of statutes, and the two sets of rules, therefore, could not well be united in one Chapter.

CHAPTER II.

JOINT OR SEVERAL OBLIGATIONS.

SECTION 1430. Obligations, joint or several, etc.

1431. When joint.

1432. Contribution between joint parties.

1430. An obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right created in favor of several persons,

may be:

1. Joint;

2. Several; or,

3. Joint and several.

NOTE.-Subd. 1.-See People vs. Hartley, 21 Cal., p. 585; Tevis vs. Randall, 6 Cal., p. 632. No recovery can be had on a bond purporting to be the joint bond of the principal and sureties, but signed by the latter only. Sacramento vs. Dunlap, 14 Cal., p. 421. But such is not the case on a joint and several bond (id.), nor upon undertakings under our system (id.)

Subd. 3.-This is the admitted rule so far as the liability of parties is concerned.-Peckham vs. North Parish, 16 Pick., p. 283; Ludlow vs. McCrea, 1 Wend., p. 228. As to the rights of parties in whose favor a contract is made, an arbitrary exception has been made, according to which their rights cannot be joint and several.-Anderson vs. Martindale, 1 East., p. 497;

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

When joint

Contribution

between

joint

partios.

Hopkinson vs. Lee, 6 Q. B., p. 964; see Bradburne vs. Botfield, 14 M. & W., p. 573; Keightley vs. Watson, 3 Exch., p. 721. This exception is purely arbitrary, and although cases are rare in which parties would desire to avail themselves of their liberty to enter into such a contract, there is not any good reason for denying them that liberty. In other respects this section follows the ruling of the English Court of Exchequer in Sorsbie vs. Park, 12 M. & W., p. 140; Keightley vs. Watson, 3 Exch., p. 716.

What is a joint and several bond?-People vs. Love, 25 Cal., p. 520; Canfield vs. Bates, 13 Cal., p. 606. As to enforcement of obligations against joint or joint and several obligors, see Code of Civil Procedure, Secs. 414, 989.

1431. An obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right created in favor of several persons, is presumed to be joint, and not several, except in the special cases mentioned in the Title on the Interpretation of Contracts. This presumption, in the case of a right, can be overcome only by express words to the contrary.

NOTE." Is presumed to be joint and not several." See Yorks vs. Peck, 14 Barb., p. 644; Hill vs. Tucker, 1 Taunt., p.7. See Secs. 1659, 1660, post. In an action on a promissory note against several joint makers, neither can show in defense that as between him and the other joint makers he was only a surety.—Shriver vs. Lovejoy, 32 Cal., p. 574.

1432. A party to a joint, or joint and several obligation, who satisfies more than his share of the claim against all, may require a proportionate contribution from all the parties joined with him.

NOTE. Where one of two defendants in a joint judgment pays it, but not with the intention of discharging it, he may enforce the judgment against the co-defendant for his legal proportion of the debt.-Coffee vs. Tevis, 17 Cal., p. 239; see, also, Bradbury vs. Barnes, 19 Cal.. p. 120; Story Cont., Sec. 33; Wood vs. Merritt, 2 Bosw., p. 368; Parker vs. Ellis, 2 Sand., p. 223; but see Murray vs. Bogert, 14 Johns., p. 318. The doctrine of contribution applies equally between those who are jointly bound on their own account (not being co-partners), as it does between co-sureties, or those

who are jointly bound to answer for the debt or default
of another.-Chipman vs. Merrill, 20 Cal., p. 130. A
party must satisfy the obligation, and must establish a
claim against his joint obligor, before the liability of
such joint obligor is fixed.-Bell vs. Walsh, 7 Cal., p.
84. In an action for contribution, the Statute of Limi-
tation does not begin to run until after the payment of
the debt by the plaintiff.-Sherwood vs. Dunbar, 6
Cal., p. 53.

CHAPTER III.

CONDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS.

SECTION 1434. Obligation, when conditional.

1435. Conditions, kinds of.

1436. Conditions precedent.

1437. Conditions concurrent.

1438. Condition subsequent.

1439. Performance, etc., of conditions, when essential.
1440. When performance, etc., excused.

1441. Impossible or unlawful conditions void.

1442. Conditions involving forfeiture, how construed.

when

1434. An obligation is conditional, when the obligation, rights or duties of any party thereto depend upon the conditional occurrence of an uncertain event.

NOTE. Whether a contract is conditional or not, is to be determined by the rules of interpretation hereafter given. The intention of the partios, as gathered from the whole contract, is superior to all technical rules. Parmelee vs. Oswego, etc., R. R. Co., 6 N. Y., p. 74; Selden vs. Pringle, 17 Barb., p. 458; Barruso vs. Madan, 2 Johns., p. 145; see Tipton vs. Feitner, 20 N. Y., p. 423; Grant vs. Johnson, 5 id., p. 247; Glaholm vs. Hays, 2 Man. & Gr., p. 266. And these cases cited give instances of conditions when precedent and when subsequent. See note to Sec. 1442, post.

1435. Conditions may be precedent, concurrent, Conditions,

or subsequent.

NOTE.-See note to preceding section, and cases cited.

kinds of

Conditions precedent.

Conditions concurrent.

Condition subsequent.

Performance, etc., of

conditions, when

essential.

1436. A condition precedent is one which is to be performed before some right dependent thereon accrues, or some act dependent thereon is performed.

1437.

NOTE.-See notes to Secs. 707 and 708, ante; and further, for examples of conditions precedent and subsequent, see Tipton vs. Feitner, 20 N. Y., p. 423; Grant vs. Johnson, 5 id., p. 247; Parmelee vs. Oswego, etc., R. R. Co., 6 id., p. 74; Oakley vs. Morton, 11 id., p. 25; Goodwin vs. Holbrook, 4 Wend., p. 377; Weisser vs. Maitland, 3 Sand., p. 318; Ellen vs. Topp, 6 Exch., p. 424; Graves vs. Legg, 9 Exch., p. 709.

Conditions concurrent are those which are mutually dependent, and are to be performed at the same time.

NOTE.-Conant vs. Conant, 10 Cal., p. 254. See note to Sec. 708, ante, "mutual covenants;" and also, see Beecher vs. Conradt, 13 N. Y., p. 108; Dunham vs. Pettee, 8 id., p. 508; Lester vs. Jewett, 11 id., p. 453; Kelley vs. Upton, 5 Duer, p. 336; Williams vs. Healey, 3 Den., p. 363.

1438. A condition subsequent is one referring to a future event, upon the happening of which the obligation becomes no longer binding upon the other party, if he chooses to avail himself of the condition.

NOTE.-See note to Sec. 708, ante; also, Miller vs. Steen, 34 Cal., p. 138; Nicoll vs. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co., 12 N. Y., pp. 121, 130, and cases cited in notes to Secs. 1434, 1436, and 1437, ante.

1439. Before any party to an obligation can require another party to perform any act under it, he must fulfill all conditions precedent thereto imposed upon himself; and must be able and offer to fulfill all conditions concurrent so imposed upon him on the like fulfillment by the other party, except as provided by the next section.

NOTE. "Must fulfill all conditions precedent thereto," etc.-Conant vs. Conant, 10 Cal., p. 254. A condition precedent must be strictly performed to entitle a person to recover. Performance is not

excused by inevitable accident.

In a case where A

agreed that he would keep twenty cows during dairy

« ZurückWeiter »