Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 15,700+ case briefs...

Taylor v. Johnston

Supreme Court of California
539 P.2d 425 (1975)


Taylor v. Johnston

Facts

Taylor (plaintiff) and Johnston (defendant) owned, bred, raised, and raced thoroughbred horses in California. On January 19, 1965, Taylor entered into two contracts to breed his two mares, Sunday Slippers and Sandy Fork, to Johnston’s stallion, Fleet Nasrullah. The contracts stated that both mares would be bred to Fleet Nasrullah in 1966 for a fee of $3,500 each. On October 4, 1965, Johnston sold Fleet Nasrullah to buyers in Kentucky. The buyers sold shares in Fleet Nasrullah to various shareholders and reserved shares for themselves. Their assistant, Mrs. Judy, managed Fleet Nasrullah’s breeding schedule and appointments. All shareholders were given the first option to breed with Fleet Nasrullah. If Fleet Nasrullah was not reserved by a shareholder, his services could be booked by third parties. Johnston informed Taylor that Fleet Nasrullah had been sold and stated that Taylor was “released” from his “reservations” for Fleet Nasrullah. Taylor told Johnston that he still wished to breed his mares with Fleet Nasrullah, and Johnston made arrangements for Taylor to breed his mares with Fleet Nasrullah in Kentucky. Taylor shipped the mares to Kentucky, where they stayed with Taylor's agent. Taylor's agent contacted Mrs. Judy and requested to breed Sunday Slippers to Fleet Nasrullah on four separate occasions in 1966. Each time, Mrs. Judy said Fleet Nasrullah was not available because he was already reserved by a shareholder. Mrs. Judy assured Frazier that breeding would still be possible in 1966. However, after being rejected by Mrs. Judy on the final date, Taylor's agent bred Sunday Slippers to another horse. Taylor's agent also attempted unsuccessfully to breed Sandy Fork with Fleet Nasrullah on June 14, 1966. Mrs. Judy informed the agent that Fleet Nasrullah was already booked by a shareholder for that day, but she told the agent that he could reserve Fleet Nasrullah on any day that was not already reserved by a shareholder. The agent made no other attempts to breed Sandy Fork to Fleet Nasrullah and instead bred her to the same horse to which Sunday Slippers had been bred. Taylor brought suit in California state court against Johnston seeking damages for breach of contract. The trial court held that Johnston and his agents were liable for anticipatory breach and awarded damages of $103,122.50 to Taylor. Johnston appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 330,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 15,700 briefs, keyed to 213 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.