Legal Opinion

Heintzsch v. LaFrance

California Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1935No. Sac. 4896PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, J.

This is an action to recover the sum of $1,000 paid under a purported contract, after rescission thereof by plaintiffs. The defendant Johansen, a real estate broker, acting as agent for defendants H. E. LaFrance and Alma LaFrance, his wife, entered into negotiations for the sale of an auto camp owned by Mr. and Mrs. LaFrance, to plaintiffs. The arrangement proposed was a sale of the business and movable property, comprising various kinds of equipment, and a lease of the land and buildings, at a specified rental. Plaintiffs paid the sum of $1,000 to Johansen, receiving written instruments…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Stirnus v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Lewis v. McClureCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Elrod-Oas Home Building Co. v. MensorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Fruitland State Bank v. LauerIdaho Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Honey v. Henry's Franchise Leasing Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Bird v. KenworthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Manley v. MacFarlandIdaho Supreme Court · 1958
  5. City Bank of San Diego v. RamageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

2 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