Legal Opinion

Tetenman v. Melekov

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 4, 1928No. Docket No. 5908PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAZLETT, J., pro tem.

This action was brought to require defendants Leon Melekov and Mary Melekov, his wife, to specifically perforin an agreement of exchange of real properties made between plaintiffs and defendant Leon Melekov. The trial court decreed that defendants Leon Melekov and Mary Melekov specifically perform as prayed for in the complaint, by delivering their deed and paying $1,500 to the use and benefit of plaintiffs according to the agreement and certain escrow instructions made by the parties to carry the agreement into effect.

Defendants Leon Melekov, Mary Melekov, and Standard…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McKevitt v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  2. Joyce v. TomasiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Katemis v. WesterlindCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  2. Sipe v. McKennaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Corona Unified School District v. VejarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API