Dickey v. Pattison
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.
The question for decision is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that no enforceable contract was made by the parties.
Appellant Claude Dickey is the son-in-law of respondent Amelia Pattison while his wife Edna and respondent Richard Pattison are her children. Amelia was the owner of Lot C in Santa Monica. It stood of record in the name of Richard. In August, 1944, a number of conversations were had among the parties concerning the purchase of Lot C by appellants. No written terms were ever agreed upon. However, it appears to be established that a title search was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Buckmaster v. BertramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Klein v. MarkarianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Pascoe v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Durst v. JollyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Herbert's Laurel-Ventura Inc. v. Laurel Ventura Holding Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1943
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Apablasa v. Merritt & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1959
- Roberts v. LebrainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- County of San Mateo v. Consolidated Farms, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1959
- Mueller v. ChandlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Sackett v. StarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.