Legal Opinion
Tutt v. Davis
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 5, 1910No. Civ. No. 818PublishedCited by 6 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. Frank F. Oster, Judge Presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, P. J.
The action was one for a decree requiring defendant to specifically perform a contract for the conveyance of real property. It is based upon an agreement between defendant and plaintiff’s assignor, which is in the words and figures following:
“Long Beach, California, Oct. 26th, 1904.
“Received of Southern California Realty Co., one hundred ($100) dollars as deposit and part payment on the west 140 feet of lots 10, 12, in block 67 of the city of Long Beach, county of Los Angeles, state of California.
“Certificate of title to be furnished showing said property free of all encumbrances; also deed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Loaiza v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Grocers' Fruit Growing Union v. Kern Cty. Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Yancy v. MortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. v. WarnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Chance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Winkler v. JerrueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- McVoy v. BaumannNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- Brown v. FairbanksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Kopke v. CarlsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.