Legal Opinion

Jacobson v. Mead

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 21, 1936No. Civ. 9121PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GOULD, J., pro tem.

When plaintiffs in January of 1927 signed an agreement to purchase a city lot they demanded that there be inserted in the contract, in addition to the usual street improvement provisions therein contained, a further covenant that vendor would plant trees in the parkway along the street upon which the lot faced. This insertion was made by vendor’s agent. A few days later, upon making the balance of the down payment of $1340, plaintiffs again requested confirmation of the agreement as to the planting of trees and other improvements, and the vendor’s agent gave plaintiffs a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Butler v. . JohnsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  3. Vrooman v. Li Po TaiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Fontana Land Co. v. LaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Verdier v. RoachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Estate of Lucas v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Pearson v. NortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. Maynes v. Angeles Mesa Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Pay Less Drug Stores v. BechdoltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

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