Connolly v. Hingley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
Ejectment; judgment for plaintiff; defendant appeals.
Both parties claim through one Chapman. The defendant claims to be in possession under a contract of purchase from Chapman made in November, 1875. This contract provided that defendant should pay for the property the sum of one thousand dollars, as follows: $100 cash on the execution of said instrument; *643$750 in sixty monthly installments of $12.50 each, payable on the first day of each month, and $150 on the first day of November, 1880. Of this sum he paid only $437.50. His last money payment was in 1877, and there was allowed him…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Speegle v. LeeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by9 opinions
- Verbeck v. ClymerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Monterey County v. CushingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Kusel v. KuselCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Barcroft v. LivacichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Baker Divide Mining Co. v. MaxfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.