Legal Opinion

Aikman v. Sanborn

California Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1898No. L. A. No. 370PublishedCited by 12 opinions

APPEAL from Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Action by William Aikman, administrator, against John P. Sanborn and another. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new trial defendants appeal.

1Per curiam

This is an action to recover $866.66 paid by plaintiff’s intestate to John P. Sanborn upon a contract for the purchase of land in the county of Los Angeles. After the contract had been made, Sanborn conveyed the land to Murphy, who expressly assumed all the obligations of San-born’s contracts. Sanborn was not served with process, and Murphy is practically the only defendant. The contract was made February 7, 1888. The purchase price was $2,600, payable in three equal installments—one, at date of contract; the second, February 7, 1889; and the third, February 7, 1890. The contract contained…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Drew v. PedlarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Merrill v. MerrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lemle v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Foxley v. RichUtah Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Mintle v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  4. Jennings v. Dexter Horton & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Anderson v. PickeringCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975

7 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