Legal Opinion

Crum v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 17, 1930No. Docket No. 117PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCart, P. J.

Plaintiffs began this action to recover from defendants the balance due on the purchase price of certain property. The complaint gave defendants credit for a down payment of $400 and claimed that the balance of $39,837.67 was unpaid. The answer admitted the allegations of the complaint, other than the nonpayment of the purchase price, and set up full payment as an affirmative defense. The court found that the allegations of the complaint were true, except as to the amount still unpaid, gave defendants credit for a further payment of $7,823.99 and gave judgment for plaintiffs for the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. McDougald v. HuletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Otis Elevator Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Shreeves v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Cannon v. HandleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Maryland Title & Escrow Corp. v. KosiskyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  2. Asher v. HermanNew York Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Zaremba v. KonopkaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
  4. GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. AventCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  5. Schmidt Et Ux. v. Fitzsimmons Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court · 1951

4 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