Contracts · MBE-tested
DYER, Respondent, v. RYAN et al., Appellants
2 Cal. Unrep. 173·Supreme Court of California·1883·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
DYER, Respondent, v. RYAN et al., Appellants.
No. 7576;
April 18, 1883.
Action—Preliminary Demand for Excessive Sum.—In an action on a contract demand may not be made for a sum exceeding what the contract calls for.
APPEAL from Superior Court, San Francisco.
Campbell, Fox & Campbell and Whittemore & McKee for appellants; Wood and Bates for respondent.
Cited and approved in Dyer v. Scalmanini, 69 Cal. 641, 11 Pae. 32-7, where it is intimated that even though the amount sued for is excessive only through error in the proceedings—the defendant being chargeable to the full, but for the technicality—the error must first be corrected by appeal to the board of supervisors.
[MAJORITY — By the COURT.]
By the COURT.
This case is similar to Dyer v. Chase, 52 Cal. 440. A larger sum was demanded than was legally due under the contract, and, for the reasons stated in that case, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.