Legal Opinion

Neiswender v. E. B. Campbell

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 4, 1932No. Docket No. 8147PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARD, J., pro tem.

The complaint in this action alleged an agreement under the terms of which plaintiff was to procure for defendants the necessary finances to drill an oil-well or to procure a responsible party or parties so to do. In May, 1927, defendant E. B. Campbell was the owner in fee simple of a lot situated on State Street in Los Angeles County which will be referred to as lot No. 1. Among other properties, Campbell had a half interest as lessee in the property designated as lot No. 8 several blocks away on Obispo Street. The other half interest as lessee belonged to defendant P. M.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
  2. Twogood v. MonnetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Moore v. BorgfeldtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. French v. McKayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  5. Brown v. MasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Williams v. KinseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Hatchett v. StorySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  3. Zelkowitz v. TobinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Shaul v. Merchants & Farmers Bank of MeridianMississippi Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Prahm v. Pickford Real Estate CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API