Legal Opinion

Thurber v. Meves

California Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1897No. S. F. No. 727PublishedCited by 19 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Santa Cruz and from an orQer refusing a new trial. J. H. Logan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.

January 1, 1883, plaintiff made a contract in writing with Otto Heves, under which Heves entered into the immediate possession of a tract of about forty acres of land belonging to plaintiff, the whole of which available for the purpose Heves was to clear up and cultivate to such fruit trees, grape vines and small fruit plants as should be furnished for the purpose by plaintiff—a certain acreage to be cleared and set out each year during the period of four years; and under which contract Heves was to erect certain fences and open up a certain private way or road; in consideration of which…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hall v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  2. King v. GildersleeveCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Ballard v. CarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Henderson v. FisherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. Husheon v. KelleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Blakeman v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

14 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