Bradford v. Parkhurst
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Temple, C.
— This appeal is from a judgment and an order refusing a new trial.
The action is for money had and received for plain*104tiff’s use, and for interest on “divers sums forborne by-plaintiff to defendant at his request.”
The statement shows that between January 9 and March 31, 1888, defendant executed to plaintiff and his assignors seven contracts for as many distinct parcels of land.
The contracts are alike, and are in the form of receipts for specified sums of money, part of the purchase price, followed by a recital as follows: “Leaving a balance .... to be paid on said purchase, which, by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cleary v. FolgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Drew v. PedlarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Phelps v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Newton v. HullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by16 opinions
- Glock v. Howard & Wilson Colony Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Shively v. Semi-Tropic Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Miller v. SnedekerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Malmberg v. BaughUtah Supreme Court · 1923
- Rayfield v. Van MeterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.