Legal Opinion
Norton v. Overholtzer
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 4, 1923No. Civ. No. 4060PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHENK, J., pro tem.
This is an action in ejectment. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for restitution of the premises and for the value of the use and occupation thereof. Defendants have appealed.
The plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of real estate and the improvements thereon situated in the city of Pasadena. The complaint is in the usual form. In their answer the defendants assert a right of possession under an alleged contract of purchase and sale the terms of which will be hereinafter noted.
On the seventeenth day of July, 1919, the plaintiff executed and delivered to M. W.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Duffy v. HobsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Wheaton v. North British and Merchantile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Armstrong v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Puterbaugh v. WadhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Weintraub v. WeingartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. CraneDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1948
- Miller & Desatnik Management Co. v. BullockAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1990
- Covina Manor, Inc. v. HatchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Barrios Co., Inc. v. J.R. Garrett Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.