Legal Opinion

Watkins v. Warren

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 18, 1932No. Docket No. 8223PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURROUGHS, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in ejectment rendered against the vendees in possession.

The action was for the possession of real estate sold to appellants by respondents under a contract of sale. The appellant vendees made default in various payments and under the forfeiture clause, time being of the essence of the agreement, the respondent vendors elected to declare the contract terminated, suing for possession only.

The purchase price as set out in the contract was the sum of $22,500 to be paid as follows: $5,000 upon the execution of the agreement, payment of which…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Boone v. TemplemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Verbeck v. ClymerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Retsloff v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  4. Jameson v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Gervaise v. BrookinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fritts v. Cloud Oak Flooring CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Kent v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Nevada Land Inv. Corp. v. SistrunkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Christy Et Ux. v. Guild Et Ux.Utah Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Barcroft v. LivacichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API