McCowen v. Pew
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Jesse W. Lilienthal, and J. E. Pemberton, for Appellant. McNab & Hirsch, D. M. Delmas, and Henry C. MePike, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This case was here before (McCowen v. Pew, 147 Cal. 299, [81 Pac. 958]) and was remanded for a new trial because an incorrect rule of law was applied by the trial court for the measurement of damages.
The action was brought in the superior court of Mendocino County. The complaint alleged that plaintiffs were the owners of about eleven hundred and sixty acres of land in said county and on October 16, 1899, entered into an agreement with the defendant, J. W. Pew (which agreement is set forth in the complaint), whereby an option was given to the latter to dispose of said property to others, or to…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & Danville Extension Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Reed v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Kreamer v. EarlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Morrill v. NightingaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Stearns v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
- National Automobile Insurance v. WinterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Peckham v. LaneSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- McCowen v. PewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Emanuel v. EngstNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.