Legal Opinion

Security Investment Co. v. Bartram

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 14, 1921No. Civ. No. 3388PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

Theplaintiff, a corporation, brought this action to secure a judgment for installments alleged to be due and unpaid upon a contract for the purchase of land. The complaint was attacked by a general demurrer which was overruled. While a partial transcript of the testimony is before us, the points presented for decision are upon the judgment-roll alone.

1. It is the contention of the appellant that plaintiff’s only remedy is for damages as provided in section 3307 of the Civil Code, or for the specific performance of the eon-. tract. In this he is mistaken. [l] The plaintiff has the right to sue…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Glock v. Howard & Wilson Colony Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Boone v. TemplemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Millar v. MillarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Craig v. ZelianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Miller v. LucoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Merrill v. Fremont Abstract Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Gray v. Fred B. Neuhoff Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Coulson v. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Pierce v. ClevelandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API