Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Cal. Civ. Code § 499 reads as follows: Two lines of street railway, operated under different managements, may be permitted to use the same street, each paying an equal portion for the construction of the tracks and appurtenances used by said railways jointly; but in no case must two lines of street railway, operated under different managements, occupy and use the same street or tracks for a distance of more than five blocks consecutively.
The promisee filed an action against the promisors based on a note and an escrow agreement related to the construction of a railway. The trial court entered a judgment for the promisee and denied the promisors' motion for a new trial. The promisors contended on appeal that their liability was conditioned upon completion of the railway at an earlier date.
Were the promisors liable under the note and the escrow agreement related to the construction of a railway?
The court affirmed the judgment and the order against the promisors. The court held that the note and an escrow agreement constituted the contract between the parties and that the written instruments expressed no time for the railway's completion. The court concluded that the trial court's findings as to whether the promisee performed the acts and conditions required within a reasonable time were not contrary to the evidence. The promisors did not allege that the work was not done within a reasonable time and there was no testimony that indicated how much time was reasonably required. The court found that it would have been manifestly unjust to permit the promisors to withdraw their offer after the promisee acted upon the unilateral contract because the promised consideration had been partly performed and the contract had taken on a bilateral character.