Luft v. Arakelian
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, P. J.
In this action the plaintiff sought to compel the defendants to specifically perform a certain contract for the purchase and sale of real estate which had been entered into by the plaintiff with a third party named Klein who, it appears, was doing business under the name of the “New York Real Estate and Building Company.”
The plaintiff’s cause of action proceeded upon the theory that Klein was not the owner of the property purchased, but was the agent of the defendants in the transaction in suit. The trial court, however, found that Klein, when executing the contract in suit, was acting for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harris v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Rodgers v. PeckhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Gosliner v. Grangers' Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by2 opinions
- Allen v. San Francisco Wholesale Dairy Produce ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Rivett v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958