Legal Opinion
Moore v. Heron
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 1, 1930No. Docket No. 247PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, J.
This is an action for specific performance. The plaintiffs, after alleging that Mary E. Heron is the owner of the land involved herein, allege that an agreement was entered into, reading as follows:
“Prospecting Permit.
“We, the undersigned, G. D. Heron and Mary E. Heron, husband and wife, owners of the real estate hereinafter described hereby grant to Leroy Moore, Oliver Marriott and associates the exclusive right to immediately enter on said premises and prospect for minerals with the following understanding:
“First—If at any time within a period of 60 days from date said Marriott and Moore…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Poultry Producers of Southern California, Inc. v. BarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- O'Brien v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Stanton v. SingletonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- City of Sacramento v. ClunieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Sayward v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Dabney v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Long Beach Drug Co. v. United Drug Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Henderson v. FisherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Richfield Oil Co. of California v. Hercules Gasoline Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- Pease v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.