Steel v. Duntley
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J., pro tem.
Upon the second trial of this action, based on the breach by the vendor of a contract to sell real estate, the parties stipulated “that the only question at issue before the court was whether or not the escrow instructions of the respective parties . . . constituted an agreement in writing legally sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds (sec. 1973, subd. 5, Code Civ. Proc.) ”. The trial court was satisfied that the statute had been complied with, and with this conclusion we agree.
One of appellant’s premises, advanced by counsel not now in the case, is that the writing…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Coulter v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Tuso v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Benson v. ShotwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Cavanaugh v. CasselmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cisco v. Van LewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Buckley v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Ulloa v. McMillin Real Estate & Mortgage, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- Wood Building Corp. v. GriffittsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958