Crim v. Umbsen
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Edward C. Harrison, and Cushing, Grant & Cushing, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
This case furnishes one of the peculiar problems growing out of the great conflagration of April 18, 1906. On April 10th of that year plaintiffs (who are appellants here) entered into a written contract with" defendant and respondent, for the sale to the latter of a tract of land in the city and county of San Francisco, for the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, of which amount fifteen thousand dollars were paid at that time, the receipt thereof being evidenced by the contract. By the terms of this agreement thirty days were allowed the defendant for examination of the title. At…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- The Title & Document Restoration Co. v. KerriganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Turner v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Gwin v. CalegarisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Reynolds v. BorelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- King v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Craig v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Dore v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Viramontes v. FoxNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
- Mains v. City Title Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.