Legal Opinion

Cambridge v. Ramser

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 22, 1919No. Civ. No. 2014PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The plaintiff in the action alleged that he is the owner of a certain sawmill and certain lands connected therewith, upon which there is a large quantity of timber suitable for manufacturing lumber; “that in the month of January or February, 1918, the said defendant represented to plaintiff that he could secure the necessary money to purchase the said mill from plaintiff, and agreed with plaintiff that if said plaintiff would place him in the possession of the said sawmill and furnish him with timber to run the said sawmill, he could and would procure the money to pay plaintiff for the same…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Luckhart v. OgdenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Hatton v. GreggCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. San Francisco Hotel Co. v. BaiorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  2. Braun v. Leo G. MacLaughlin Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Lucas v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API