Legal Opinion

Hale v. Trout

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1868PublishedCited by 33 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, Tuolumne County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Sawyer, C. J.:

The plaintiffs, as parties of the second part, and defendants, as parties of the first part, entered into a contract containing the following covenants: The parties of the second part agree to go upon said premises and take possession of all the personal property and mill, and to sell, manufacture, and deliver to parties of the first part two million feet of merchantable and clear sawed lumber, to be in length from twelve to twenty-four feet, and sawed to the order of the parties of the first part; said orders to be furnished always in advance, and to include all…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Shannon v. ComstockNew York Supreme Court · 1839
  2. Derby v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
  3. Fowler v. ArmourSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
  4. Town of Royalton v. Royalton & Woodstock Turnpike Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1842

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Shoemaker v. AckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Alderson v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Black River Lumber Co. v. WarnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
  4. Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Waco Tap Railroad v. ShirleyTexas Supreme Court · 1876

28 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