Legal Opinion

Burnett v. Kullak

California Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 1888No. 12362PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Santa Barbara. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

Searls, C.

This action was brought to compel specific performance of a contract, which contract is in the following words: —

"Santa Barbara, Cal., April 19, 1887.
“Received of L. G. Burnett, the sum of one hundred dollars, being a deposit on the one-quarter interest of the Callis tract of forty-three and one half acres, or one-half interest of the undersigned in said tract. The terms of this transaction are four thousand dollars for said interest in said tract,—fifteen hundred dollars cash within sixteen days from date, as soon as L. G. Burnett is satisfied as to title of said tract, and two…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Truett v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Haley v. AmestoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Breckinridge v. CrockerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Rundel v. GordonSupreme Court of Florida · 1927
  3. Gould v. CallanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Marsh v. LottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  5. Roberts v. LebrainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

16 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