Bennett v. Hyde
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Temple, C.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and an order refusing a new trial.
The action is to enforce specific performance of a written contract for the sale of lands.
There was no error in striking out portions of the complaint, if the court correctly determined, as we think it did, that time was of the essence of the contract sued on.
Furthermore, that ruling is not specified as an error upon -which the plaintiff would rely on his motion for a new trial.
There is abundant evidence to sustain all the findings excepted to.
The only real question in the case is, whether time was of the essence…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Grey v. TubbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by10 opinions
- Glock v. Howard & Wilson Colony Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Bell v. StadlerIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
- Cushing v. LeviCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Machold v. FarnanIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Gude & Walker v. Bailey Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.