Legal Opinion
Dillingham v. Dahlgren
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 21, 1921No. Civ. No. 3688PublishedCited by 38 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, P. J.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment against him for $1,350 for the breach of an agreement to sell to the plaintiffs a certain piece of real property situated at Fresno, California.
Appellant contends that the complaint, evidence, and findings are insufficient to sustain the judgment because they do not show a binding agreement between the parties for the sale of this property. The contract sued upon is brief, and is as follows:
“A. L. Dahlgren agrees to sell to Evelyn L. Dillingham the following described property.
“Lots 7 and E y2 8 Blk. 33 Belmont Add. for the sum of $3750.00 to…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Spinney v. DowningCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Breckinridge v. CrockerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Sandor v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1974
- Autry v. Republic Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1947
- Vangel v. VangelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Producers Fruit Co. v. GoddardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Apablasa v. Merritt & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1959
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.