Legal Opinion

White v. Bank of Hanford

California Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1906No. Sac. No. 1251PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Defendants Johannsen and Battenfeldt entered into an agreement with plaintiff, White, in the following language: “Armona, July 24, 1903.—This is to certify that Sandy J. White has an option of purchase of our half section of land, being the south half of section 29, township 19 south, of range 21, containing 320 acres, together with all the growing crops of every kind, for the sum of $10,200 to be paid as follows, to wit: $250 cash down, the balance of $9,950 to be paid on or before August the 15th, 1903, and if said sum is not paid at said date then the above sum to be forfeited. We agree to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Duffy v. HobsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Armstrong v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Grant v. EdeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Treat v. CelisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Smith v. PostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Rosenaur v. PacelliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Seymour v. ShaefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Briles v. PaulsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Canty v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API