Legal Opinion

Danelian v. McLoney

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 8, 1954No. Civ. 19876PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

Defendants demand reversal of a judgment for damages for breach of a contract of joint venture. They have specified their assignments of error, each of which shall in its turn be answered. The amended complaint alleges two grounds for recovery, to wit, (1) losses sustained as a “result of the sale of the properties” and (2) “damages caused by the refusal of appellants to pay the money required by the agreement to be paid by them.”

Liability Established By Fair Construction of Contract

Prior to October 31, 1946, appellants held options to purcase two contiguous parcels of real property in San…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. San Francisco Iron & Metal Co. v. American Milling & Industrial Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  2. Boa v. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Rys.California Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Vitagraph, Inc. v. Liberty Theatres Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Hendy v. MarchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Freeman v. DonohoeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Green v. KensingerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1967
  2. Lau v. Valu-Bilt Homes, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Martyn v. LeslieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. Hunter v. CroysdillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Stilwell v. TrutanichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

7 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