Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

default, the sum of $60 per share, cash, upon the delivery of the same to defendant and of the certificate therefor properly endorsed by plaintiff to defendant.

2. That thereupon, and on said 21st day of July, 1903, plaintiff paid to said company, the sum of $3,000, the purchase price of said shares. of stock, and thereupon received a certificate therefor; that said purchase price was paid in contemplation of and pursuant to said written promise of defendant, he being at and before said time a stockholder in and officer of said corporation.

3. [Here follows averment as to the default of said company in the payment of any dividend.]

4. That on the 30th day of March, 1905, plaintiff requested defendant to purchase said 50 shares of said capital stock of the Watsonville Transportation Company, and to pay him therefor the sum of $60 per share, as theretofore agreed as aforesaid, and at said time tendered to defendant the said certificate of stock to said Watsonville Transportation Company for said 50 shares of capital stock thereof properly endorsed to defendant by the plaintiff.

5. That defendant has wholly failed, neglected, and refused to accept said certificate of stock, or to pay the said purchase price of said shares of stock, at the rate of $60 per share, or at any other rate whatever, and that said shares of stock are, and each of them is, without any value whatever; that on account of the defendant's refusal to purchase the same as agreed upon, plaintiff has sustained damages in the sum of $3,000.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment of this court against defendant for $3,000 and costs of suit.

[Verification.]

Charles M. Cassin, Attorney for plaintiff.

FORM No. 623-For breach of an option contract to repurchase stock.

(In Raiche v. Morrison, 37 Mont. 244; 95 Pac. 1061.)

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and for cause of action alleges:

1. That on the 18th day of September, 1903, in consideration of the sum of $1,000 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant. sold and delivered to the plaintiff twenty shares of the capital stock of the Minneapolis and Montana Live Stock Company, and agreed

with the plaintiff to repurchase the said shares of stock from the plaintiff at the expiration of three years from the said date for the sum of $1,720, this latter agreement being a memorandum as follows: "Harlem, Mont., Sept. 18, 1903. Three years from the date hereof I agree to pay J. H. Raiche $1,720 for 20 shares in the Minneapolis and Montana Live Stock Company. J. R. Morrison. Witnesses, Hunter Hardaway and John R. Ressler."

That the plaintiff thereafter, to wit, on the day of 1906, notified the defendant he would accept the option to repurchase, and at the expiration of the period of the said three years tendered to the defendant the said certificate representing the twenty shares of said stock duly endorsed, and an assignment of the said certificate to the defendant, and thereupon demanded $1,720, the price agreed upon, but that the defendant refused to accept the said or any certificate, and declined to pay the defendant the said sum of $1,720 or any part thereof; that by reason thereof the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $1,720.

Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judgment for the said sum of $1,720, and interest thereon, and the costs of suit.

[Verification.]

Sands & O'Keefe, Attorneys for plaintiff.

FORM No. 624-For breach of contract for purchase of fruit.

(In Ellsworth v. Knowles, 8 Cal. App. 630; 97 Pac. 690.)

[Title of court and cause.]

Plaintiff complains of defendants, and for cause of action alleges: 1. That W. G. Knowles and Frank J. Knowles were on the 5th day of July, 1905, and ever since have been, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Knowles Brothers.

2. That on or about the 6th day of July, 1905, plaintiff agreed with said copartnership, to buy of it, and said copartnership agreed to sell to the plaintiff, and to deliver to him, 150 122-pound kilo boxes of choice apricots at five and seven-eighths cents per pound, boxed, less five per cent, the buyer to furnish lace paper with usual allowance, labels to be furnished by buyer free; that said apricots under said contract were to be delivered by said copartnership to said plaintiff in the month of August, 1905, f. o. b. San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, sight draft for the purchase price of said apricots to accompany bill of lading.

3. That the time of said contract for the delivery of said apricots has elapsed, and that plaintiff has always been ready, able, and willing to furnish said lace paper and labels, and has many times prior to the time for the delivery of said apricots under said agreement of sale offered to deliver said lace paper and labels in accordance with said agreement, and has always been ready, willing, and able to receive said apricots and to pay for them at the price aforesaid upon the presentation of sight draft for the purchase price attached to the bill of lading of said apricots, according to the terms of said agreement, of all of which the said copartnership had notice.

4. That the said copartnership has not delivered said apricots, or any part thereof, to the plaintiff.

5. That in the month of August, 1905, and within such period after the time agreed upon as aforesaid for the delivery of said fruit as would have sufficed for plaintiff to purchase the same quantity of fruit of like quality and kind, plaintiff would have been required to pay in the market of said Santa Clara County the sum of $1,442.89 more for said fruit than said contract price, and said fruit at the said time agreed upon for the delivery of the same, and within said period thereafter, would have been worth to plaintiff the sum of $1,442.89 more than said contract price.

6. That by reason of the premises the plaintiff has thereby sustained damages in the sum of $1,442.89.

And for another, further, and separate cause of action, plaintiff alleges:

[Here follows a repetition of the allegations in the first cause of action, except that the second cause is upon a contract of a later date, to wit, July 25, 1905, for an additional 1,250 25-pound boxes of fruit at six and three-ninths cents per pound, and 1,250 25-pound boxes at seven and one-eighth cents per pound, less brokerage, etc. The damages for breach of contracts of July 25, 1905, are alleged to be the sum of $1,375.]

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment for the sum of $2,817.89 and for costs of suit.

[Verification.]

L. B. Archer, and

Wm. P. Veuve, Attorneys for plaintiff.

FORM No. 625-Averments as to damages for breach of contract to purchase

oil.

(In Central Oil Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 154 Cal. 165; 97 Pac. 177.)

[Title of court and cause.]

Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1-6. [After preliminary averments, as to the execution of the contract to purchase, breach of the agreement by the defendant, offer to perform on the part of the plaintiff, etc., the averments as to damages are set forth as follows:]

7. That under the contract of purchase made by the plaintiff with the defendant, the defendant agreed to pay for said oil at the rate of seventy cents per barrel of forty-two gallons each; that the freight on oil of the character agreed to be sold under said contract from Whittier, Los Angeles County, California, (the contract providing for sale of the oil at the wells, at Whittier, in said county,) to Los Angeles City, California, where the same was to be delivered, was at all times since said contract was made, ten cents per barrel; that since said contract of sale was made and said oil sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, the price of oil of the kind and character described in said agreement has grown less, and has varied from time to time. 8. That when the defendant failed and refused to accept the 5,000 barrels of oil agreed to be taken by the defendant during the month of August, 1904, the plaintiff sought to sell the same on the market, but was unable to sell the same at any time before the commencement of this action; that the plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that the value to the plaintiff and the market price and value of the oil sold by the plaintiff to the defendant under the contract set out in the complaint, and which oil the defendant failed and refused to receive and accept during the month of August, 1904, was the sum of thirty cents per barrel at the place of delivery and at the time when the same was to be delivered; [here follows similar averments with reference to oil which was to be delivered during the months of February, March, April, May, and June, 1905;] that the plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the profit which would accrue to the plaintiff upon the 15,000 barrels of oil which was agreed to be taken by the defendant during the months of April, May, and June, 1905, would amount to the sum of $4,500.

9. That by reason of the failure, refusal, and neglect of the defendant to receive and accept the oil so purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, and to carry out the contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, as hereinbefore set forth, plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $9,000.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for the sum of $9,000, and for costs of suit.

[Verification.]

§315. ANSWERS.

Percy R. Wilson, Attorney for plaintiff.

FORM No. 626-Defense of non-compliance with contract.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]:. Defendant denies that said work was completed in a good or workmanlike manner, and alleges that said work was deficient in this, that [state in what manner the work was deficient]; and the same was not completed on or before the day limited therefor in the contract set forth in the complaint [or petition], but was then and from thence. to the beginning of this action incomplete and unfinished.

[Etc.]

FORM No. 627-Defense of coverture of the defendant.

[Title of court and cause.]

[After introductory part:]

That at the time of the execution of the note, as alleged in the complaint herein, this defendant was, and still is, the wife of one D. E.; that she did not then have, nor has she now, any separate property or business of any nature. [Or, in case she has a separate estate or business, allege that the said supposed contract did not in any way concern such separate property or business.] [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 628-Defense of breach of contract to feed and care for animals, and cross-complaint for damages.

(In Calland v. Nichols, 30 Neb. 532, 534; 46 N. W. 631.)

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendants, for answer and cross-complaint to plaintiff's peti tion:

« PředchozíPokračovat »