Legal Opinion

Dickens v. Bunker

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 6, 1959No. Civ. 23468; Civ. 23469PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerndon, J.

The two judgments here presented for review are identical in form and were rendered in companion cases, which were consolidated for purposes of trial. These judgments command appellant Lester V. Peterman specifically to perform certain contracts for the sale of land by executing deeds conveying the described parcels to respondents. The basic question is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that one Chester A. Bunker acted as appellant’s ostensible agent in entering into the contracts and in collecting from respondents the purchase money payments made…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Ernst v. SearleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Johnson v. SchimpfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Boie-Hansen v. Sisters of CharityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Marks v. BunkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Meyer v. Glenmoor Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. Chartered Bank of London v. Chrysler Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  4. Warshauer v. Bauer Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. State Air Resources Board v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

2 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