Legal Opinion
Ward v. Pearsall
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 5, 1925No. 4243PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUNT, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Ward, defendant below, frCm a de*366cree for specific performance of a contract to purchase' timber lands in California.
The lower court decided that all the equities were with the plaintiff, Pearsall, and decreed that Pearsall, within a limited time, should deposit an abstract of title and a good, and sufficient deed, and that, if such deposits were in compliance with the contract, Ward, within 10 days from notice of the deposit, should deposit the purchase price, together with interest and costs. Because of failure on the part of Ward to comply with the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Poultry Producers of Southern California, Inc. v. BarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Maryland Construction Co. v. KuperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1900
- Kuhn v. FreemanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Wolleson v. CoburnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Day v. MountinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Midland Valley R. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Pike v. Von FleckensteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Hendrix v. City of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022