Legal Opinion
California Pear Growers Ass'n v. Herspring
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 22, 1923No. Civ. No. 2552PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action was for the balance of the purchase price of pears sold by the plaintiff to the defendant and plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant has appealed. The contract between the parties was in writing, executed on July 17, 1919, and we may quote the following provisions:
“1. Subject to delivery by growers under the standard pear crop agreement of the seller, the seller agrees to sell and the buyer agines to accept and buy from the seller 1000 tons, more or less, windfall pears, at the price of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) per ton, f. o. b. riverbank, Sacramento River, during the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Bias v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Kelly-Atkinson Construction Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bastanchury v. Times-Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
- Sackett v. SpindlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Neith Co-operative Dairy Products Ass'n v. National Cheese Producers' FederationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Fischer v. MeansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Foster v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.