Legal Opinion

Tarpey v. Curran

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1924No. Civ. No. 4715PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSt. Sure, J.

This is an action to recover 133,617.20, balance due on a last installment of $37,500 under agreement to purchase certain magnesite mining claims, to which plaintiff as vendor and defendants Curran and Phillips as vendees were the original parties, and for the foreclosure of a vendor’s lien on said mining claims.

Defendants Thomas, Winter, Piedra Magnesite Company and American Refractories Company are joined as claimants of interests in the mining property and a calcining plant, as purchasers, grantees, assignees, mortgagees and judgment creditors.

The third amended complaint alleges that…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Clopton v. CloptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Lisenby v. NewtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Robinson v. RispinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  5. Wilson v. BeazleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Barnard v. HuffMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Citizens Suburban Co. v. Rosemont Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. Fruitvale Canning Co. v. CottonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. The Armstrong Co. v. Shell Co. of Cal.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Lonas v. Metropolitan Mortgage and Securities Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1967

4 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