Legal Opinion

Miller v. Gusta

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 31, 1929No. Docket No. 7116PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOGLING, J., pro tem.

This was an action for specific performance of an agreement for the exchange of properties. Plaintiff and respondent Erastus Miller was the owner of a leasehold interest in an apartment house building in the city of Los Angeles, known as the Monroe apartments, and the owner of the furniture and furnishings therein. Defendants and appellants, Gusta, who are husband and wife, were the owners of a lot of land, improved with a building, in the city of Los Angeles, and of the furniture and furnishings therein. The parties agreed to an exchange of these properties, the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cowdery v. London Etc. BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. County of San Luis Obispo v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Joyce v. TomasiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Hihn v. PeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  5. McCarthy v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Ballenger v. TillmanMontana Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Botka v. Sandra T.California Court of Appeal · 1974
  3. San Bernardino Valley Water Development Co. v. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. In Re Marriage of RoeschCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. D'ANDREA v. PringleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

13 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