Neet v. Holmes
25 Cal. 2d 447 ·
Supreme Court of California · Filed
Published · citable
Cited by 3
Holding
The court held that the plaintiffs' action for rescission of a mining lease and imposition of a constructive trust was properly dismissed because they failed to plead sufficient facts to establish the lease’s unfairness, and because their conduct—including the acceptance of royalty payments after notice of rescission and their delay in bringing suit until the lease term expired—constituted laches and a waiver of their right to rescind.
Statutes construed
- CIV § 1589
- PRC § 2322
Cited by (3)
- MARTIN J. KNEGO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. HORACE JAMES GROVER, Defendant and Appellant; MARTIN J. KNEGO, as Administrator With the Will Annexed, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HORACE JAMES GROVER, Defendant and Appellant (1962) 208 Cal. App. 2d 134
- U-TEX OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWIN W. PAULEY et al., Defendants and Appellants (1962) 209 Cal. App. 2d 88
- LEWIS EARL ROUSE, Individually and as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORVELL B. UNDERWOOD et al., Defendants and Respondents (1966) 242 Cal. App. 2d 316