Legal Opinion
Cavanaugh v. Casselman
California Supreme Court
Decided April 1, 1891No. 13958PublishedCited by 39 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of tlie Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for the non-fulfillment of the following contract:—
*546“ This indenture, made and entered into this sixteenth day of May, 1888, by and between Ezra Casselman, of the county of Sacramento, party of the first part, and W. B. Cavanaugh, of the city of Sacramento, party of the second part, witnesseth: The party of the first part hereby agrees to sell to the party of the second part, and the party of the second part hereby agrees to buy from the party of the first part, the following described premises, belonging to the party of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dillon v. . AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Justice v. . LangNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Vassault v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- McDonald v. HuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Lowber v. ConnitWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- California Teachers Assn. v. CoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Peterson Development Co. v. Torrey Pines BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Fresno Flume & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Kingfisher Mill & Elev. Co. v. WestbrookSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.