Legal Opinion

Seeburg v. El Royale Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 12, 1942No. Civ. 13352PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J. pro tem.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of nonsuit rendered against him. On the 27th day of March, 1940, the defendant, being then the owner of a certain apartment house, entered into an agreement with plaintiff whereby it granted to him the “sole and exclusive right and option to purchase” that apartment house, for a price and on terms and conditions therein set forth. Plaintiff paid defendant for this option the sum of $5,000, which was not to be a part of the price if the option should be exercised. The option ran to and including April 27, 1940, and in order to exercise it…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Peoples Street Ry. Co. v. SpencerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  3. Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. . LearyNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  4. Joyce v. ShaferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Burks v. DaviesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. v. Bbtc CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Warner Bros. Pictures v. BrodelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Dawson v. GoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Claremont Terrace Homeowners' Ass'n v. United StatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. Caras v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

16 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