Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Rosenkranz

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 13, 1931No. Docket No. 7675PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, J., pro tem.

Vrena A. Rosenkranz gave to appellant, upon terms therein expressed, an exclusive option to purchase her real property “free and clear of encumbrance”. After her failure to perform, upon the exercise of his option, appellant, alleging she acted in bad faith, sued to recover under section 3306 of the Civil Code “the difference between the price agreed to be paid and the value of the estate agreed to be conveyed, at the time of the breach”. As J. A. Rosenkranz was joined as a party solely because of marriage, he will be eliminated from this discussion and Vrena A. Rosenkranz…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Johnson v. SchimpfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Shaw v. Union Escrow & Realty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Hamaker v. BryanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Yates v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cook v. NordstrandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  2. Robertson v. BogertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API