Sunol v. Molloy
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
By averbal contract between the plaintiff and one Witt, the latter agreed to sow in grain a tract of land which the plaintiff leased to him for the farming season of 1877-78, and to harvest the crop raised thereon, have it threshed, sacked, and hauled at his own expense to a place called SunoVs Station, and deliver it there to the plaintiff, who was to divide it according to the terms of the contract.
*370After Witt had planted the crop he mortgaged it to the defendant Molloy, and left the leased premises; Molloy entered into possession under his mortgage and harvested the crop, but kept it all,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. PurvisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Abernethy v. UhlmanOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Lafont v. Bird AriasSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1940
- Acme Investment Corp. v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Tozzi v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.