Legal Opinion

Weisenberg v. Hirschhorn

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 13, 1929No. Docket No. 6711PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

On March 10, 1925, plaintiff and respondent Weisenberg bought from defendants and appellants for $3,200 a one-third interest in a parcel of land. The contract of purchase contained a provision giving respondent “the option or privilege to have upon thirty days’ notice, within one year from the date hereof, the said sum of $3,200 refunded to him by the parties of the first part (i. e., appellants), together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum to date of such refund upon surrendering and reconveying to the parties of' the first part the one-third interest in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McKee v. SoherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Sutliff v. Sweetwater Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  3. North Stockton Town Lot Co. v. FischerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Dean v. HawesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  5. Amaranth Land Co. v. CoreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Still v. Plaza Marina Commercial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  2. Ross v. McDougalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Bonner v. FinneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Barnhart v. BlackburnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Gray v. Fred B. Neuhoff Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API