Legal Opinion

Martin v. Martin

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 28, 1935No. Civ. 9339PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EDMONDS, J., pro tem.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether a contract sued upon provided for payment conditioned upon receiving the money from a specified source or was not so limited.

Hattie A. Martin died leaving three sons, one of whom as executor and trustee of her estate, appears here as a plaintiff. Another son died and this action is against his estate for money alleged to be due and payable to the estate of his mother under a contract made by him after her death. The complaint recited the execution and delivery of this contract, which is set out in full, and demanded…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lynch v. Keystone Consol. Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Warman Steel Casting Co. v. Redondo Beach Chamber of CommerceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  3. Hayes v. O'MarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Morrison v. Sycamore Canyon Gravel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Owen v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Sunniland Fruit, Inc. v. VerniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. Rains v. ArnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Norden v. MetsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. Furst & Thomas v. ElliottIdaho Supreme Court · 1936

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API