Simmons v. Sweeney
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, denying a new trial. Peter J. Shields, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.—The
action is for damages for the violation of a contract. In December, 1906, appellant procured from one Henderson an option on lots 5, 6, and east half of lot 7, bounded by M and N and Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, in the city of Sacramento, for the sum of $16,000.-Shortly afterward appellant entered into an agreement with respondent whereby she was to purchase the property for $16,250 and give him one-third of the profits above $16,250 when the property could be sold for as much as $19,000. Accordingly appellant procured Henderson to deed the property to respondent for said…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Alderson v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Zeimer v. AntisellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Cable v. FoleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Arizona-Parral Mining Co. v. ForbesArizona Supreme Court · 1915
- Sass v. HankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Louisville Title Insurance v. Surety Title & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Olympic Finance Co. v. Thomas R. Thyret, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Azure Hills Club, Inc., BankruptCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- McKay v. FlemingColorado Court of Appeals · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.