Legal Opinion
Harper v. Goldschmidt
California Supreme Court
Decided August 31, 1909No. L.A. No. 2298PublishedCited by 35 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of realty, which contract, as pleaded in the complaint, was evidenced by the following written memorandum or receipt:
"Los Angeles, Cal., Jan. 11, 1907.
“Received of H. H. Goldschmidt one hundred dollars, part payment on lot numbered 3, block — Harper’s Magnolia Place. Terms; Total price five thousand two hundred and fifty dollars; balance to be paid as follows: $1400.00 cash on delivery of contract, less $250.00 discount as Com. on sale, $1250.00 in 6 months from date—$1250.00 12 months from date,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Ide v. LeiserMontana Supreme Court · 1890
- Worrall v. . MunnNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Wilkinson v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Hubbard v. MarshallWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Clason v. BaileyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1817
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Lingsch v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Ellis v. MihelisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Buckley v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Warder v. HutchisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Murdock v. SwansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.