Southern Pacific Co. v. Lipman
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated.in the opinion of the court. William Singer, Jr., H. V. Reardan, and Guy Shoup, for Appellant
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of plaintiff for a new trial.
On September 6, 1888, plaintiff and defendant entered into six contracts for the sale and purchase of real property situated in Los Angeles County, this state. Each contract related to a separate quarter-section of land, and the first four—Nos. 9,886, 9,887, 9,888, and 9889—embraced all of section 27, township 6 north, range 10 west, San Bernardino base and meridian. The other two—Nos. 9,890, and 9,891— embraced the north half of section 27, township 8 north, range 10 west, same base and meridian. All these…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. Southern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- United States v. Colton Marble & Lime Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Bell v. StaackeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Livermore v. BealCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Sheehan v. VedderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Arnold v. Universal Oil Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941
- Wood v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Department of Mental Hygiene v. RosseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.