Rayfield v. Van Meter
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. Charles W. Slack, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, C.
On September 4, 1890, the parties to this action entered into a contract in writing whereby plaintiff covenanted to sell to defendant certain household- furniture at the price of eighteen hundred and thirty dollars, of which price the sum of one thousand dollars was then paid and the residue was to be paid on or before September 4, 1891, plaintiff to give a bill of sale of the furniture on receiving such deferred payment; defendant received immediate possession of the goods, but agreed on his part that if he failed to pay the said balance he would restore such possession to plaintiff…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hansbrough v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Ketchum & Sweet v. EvertsonNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Hicks v. LovellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Parsons v. SmilieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Thirlby v. RainbowMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Liver v. MillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Clifton v. WillsonMontana Supreme Court · 1913
- Tomboy Gold & Copper Co. v. MarksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Pfitzer v. CandeiasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Bowden v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.