Legal Opinion

Nielsen v. Swanberg

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1929No. Docket No. 6754PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.

This action is for the purpose of recovering the purchase price of certain stock and is predicated upon a clause in a written agreement executed on June 25, 1923, between the Altomont Creamery, Inc., (respondent’s assignor), as the party of the first part, Acme Ice Cream Company, as party of the second part, and C. 0. Swanberg (appellant), as party of the third part, which is as follows: “The Third Party further agrees that at any time prior to July 1, 1926, should the first party not have exercised the option next hereinabove given it to exchange the said preferred…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hulen v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Bartlett v. Odd FelLows' Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Breen v. MayneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
  5. Puckhaber v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Valley Construction Co. v. City of CalistogaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  2. Christie v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Ruiz v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. W. C. Cook & Co. v. White Truck & Transfer Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Whims v. MarcoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API