Legal Opinion

Haddock v. Knapp

California Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1915No. L. A. No. 3467PublishedCited by 21 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying a decree for specific performance of an agreement to exchange real property. The appeal is on the judgment-roll alone.

It is alleged in the complaint that on June 14, 1912, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a written agreement, whereby the defendants agreed to convey to plaintiff lot 7 of tract 510 in the city of Los Angeles, subject to a mortgage thereon for three thousand dollars, and subject also to a lease which was to be assigned to plaintiff. Plaintiff, on his part, agreed to convey to the defendant I. D. Knapp, lots 14 and 15 of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Krasky v. WollpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Wilson v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Dore v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Morrill v. EversonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Notten v. MensingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  2. Boro v. RuzichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Lamb v. California Water & Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Foley v. CowanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  5. Williams v. RushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

16 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