Chandler v. Hollingsworth
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
SHIELDS, J., pro tem.
This is an action for specific performance of an agreement set forth in “Exhibit A” and attached to and made a part of plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
It appears that the defendants Hollingsworth and Miles were part owners of a tract of about one thousand acres of land in the city of Los Angeles. At the time of the exeeu tlon of the writing known as “Exhibit A” the legal title to this tract of land stood in the name of Title Guarantee and Trust Company, as trustee. The beneficial interest in the property stood, an undivided one-half in W. I. Hollingsworth and Hattie G.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Poultry Producers of Southern California, Inc. v. BarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Stanton v. SingletonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Dillingham v. DahlgrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Buckmaster v. BertramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Klein v. MarkarianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Long Beach Drug Co. v. United Drug Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Richfield Oil Co. of California v. Hercules Gasoline Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- Roberts v. LebrainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Arhart v. ThompsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1947
- Dickey v. PattisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.