Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Brown

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 4, 1929No. Docket No. 3655PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHIELDS, J., pro tem.

This appeal arose from facts of which the following is a sufficient statement: Plaintiff and the defendant Brown were associated together in various real estate activities. While so associated a tract of land near Elsinore, in the county of Riverside, was called to their notice and they took an option for the purchase from its owners, each paying one-half of the cost of the option. The defendants Hursh and Clement were copartners engaged in real estate operations. Plaintiff interviewed the latter defendants with the view of having them purchase the Elsinore property held…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Moropoulos v. C. H. & O. B. Fuller Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Gray v. Palmer & EatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  3. Clark v. HewittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Shunken v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Shiro Nakamura v. Masaharu KondoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Gherman v. ColburnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  2. Boyd v. BevilacquaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. James v. HerbertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Prince v. HartingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Laughlin v. HaberfeldeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

10 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