UNION PACKING CO.
v.
CARIBOO LAND & CATTLE CO., LIMITED

9th Cir. | 1951-09-24
No. 12703
Before STEPHENS, HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges.
191 F.2d 814 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1951)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that expenditures made in reliance on an oral contract, even if over $500, can create an equitable estoppel against the application of the Statute of Frauds under California law.


Facts & Procedural History

The trial court found that parties entered into an oral contract for the purchase and sale of livestock valued at $500 or more. The plaintiff-appellee…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Under competent evidence the trial court found that certain conversations between parties together with their acts constituted a firm contract between them for the purchase and sale of live stock.

The trial court also found, from competent evidence, that, although the contract was oral and involved value of five hundred dollars or more, the expenditure of large sums of money by plaintiff-appellee in the course of executing the contract deprived defendant-appellant of the right to benefit under the California statutes of fraud.

The California fraud statutes cover contracts of the nature here concerned and provide against enforcement thereof if they involve value of $500 and upwards unless some memorandum thereof is in writing. Sections 1624a and 1724, Civil Code of California, and Section 1973a, Code of Civil Procedure of California.

Under California law, which rules this case, expenditures in these circumstances create an equitable estoppel against application of the statute of frauds. This principle is well set out in the leading case of Seymour v. Oelrichs, 1909, 156 Cal. 782, 106 P. 88. See also Flint v. Giguiere, 1920, 50 Cal.App. 314, 195 P. 85.

We are unable to see anything contrary to these principles in our case of E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. Moore Mill & Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 1938, 97 F. 2d 402.

Detailed recitation of the facts would be of little or no assistance to anyone. There appear to be some inconsistencies in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, but they do not require reversal.

Judgment affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw