Legal Opinion

Hicks v. Wilson

California Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1925No. Docket No. S.F. 10667PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, J.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought an action to recover $3,000, alleged to be due for money paid to defendant Cokely, a realtor, as agent for defendant Wilson, on account of the purchase of real property, Wilson, the owner of the property, having refused to execute the deed. Wilson offered the sum of $600 to plaintiffs, and on their refusal to accept the tender he placed the money in bank and gave proper notice of the deposit. It was shown at the trial that the plaintiffs paid Cokely $3,000 toward the purchase price of the property without the knowledge of Wilson. Cokely paid Wilson $500…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gold v. PhelanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Ernst v. SearleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Sands v. Eagle Oil & Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Pray v. AnthonyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Coover v. CoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Fairbanks v. Crump Irrigation & Supply Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930

10 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