Herberger v. Husman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
— The defendant agreed that if plaintiff should be dissatisfied with the purchase of the lots at the end of one year (at which time, November 30, 1888, the balance of the purchase price was to be paid), he, the defendant, would return the fifteen hundred dollars, with interest thereon, provided the plaintiff gave him thirty days’ notice and a surrender of the title to the lots. The plaintiff did become dissatisfied with the purchase, and notified defendant of the fact on September 13, 1888, in a written notice which contained a demand for the return of the fifteen hundred dollars, with…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Whelan v. ReillySupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Hills v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Brock v. HidyOhio Supreme Court · 1862
- Ashbaugh v. MurphyIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hulen v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. RichardsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Pierce v. LukensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Schultz v. O'RourkeMontana Supreme Court · 1896
- Union Collection Co. v. OliverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.