Legal Opinion

Phillips v. Day

California Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1889No. 13351PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

The facts of this case, and the questions presented and tried in the court below, are thus stated in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, which is set out in the transcript:—

“In this case the plaintiff and defendant, on the thirty-first day of August, 1887, entered into a contract in writing, by which defendant bound himself to sell to plaintiff, and plaintiff bound himself to purchase, a tract of land known as the John Fulkerson place, for the sum of eight thousand dollars; 'five hundred dollars to bind bargain, and two thousand dollars at expiration of sixty days, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Shriver v. . ShriverNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. Harding & Loftin v. JasperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. People v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Hellreigel v. . ManningNew York Court of Appeals · 1884

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Archer v. Salinas CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. City of Chicago v. DrexelIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
  3. London & San Francisco Bank, Ltd. v. City of OaklandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
  4. French v. PhelpsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  5. City of Eureka v. FayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

1 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