O'Sullivan v. Griffith
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Appeal from a judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff sued to recover two thousand seven hundred dollars alleged to be due as the purchase price of all the right, title, and interest of plaintiff and J. Wiseman MacDonald in certain street-railroad franchises in Reno, Nevada, sold and conveyed by plaintiff and MacDonald to the defendant.
The conveyance to the defendant recited the fact that the franchises had been duly given to the plaintiff and two other persons who had subsequently transferred their interest to the plaintiff, and then proceeded thus:…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Talton v. MayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Gee v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Amestoy v. Elec. Rapid Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Shumway v. LeakeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn.California Supreme Court · 1940
- Loranger v. NadeauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Western Oil & Refining Co. v. Venago Oil Corp.California Supreme Court · 1933
- Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.