Legal Opinion

Bothin v. the California Title Ins. Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1908No. S.F. No. 4493PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.

This action was brought to recover damages; for breach of a covenant in a title insurance policy. The facts, either admitted or proven, are as follows: On March 1, 1900,. the plaintiff H. E. Bothin having entered into a contract for-the purchase from the Sharon Estate Company of City Slip, lots 71 and 72 in the city and county of San Francisco,, applied to the defendant, a corporation engaged in issuing • title insurance policies, for a policy insuring the title to said, lots.

On December 13, 1900, the defendant duly issued its policy-of insurance on said lots, guaranteeing the title to the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sharon v. MinnockNevada Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Long v. DollarhideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Garber v. GianellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Rankin v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
  5. Edwards v. McKernanMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Ludy v. ZumwaltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  2. Stafford v. BallingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  3. Kentucky Title Company v. HailCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
  4. Standard Oil Co. v. SlyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Stearns v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1971

8 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