Prentice v. Erskine
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order refusing a new trial. H. Z. Austin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and from an order denying said plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The parties to the action entered into a written agreement whereby plaintiff covenanted to sell and defendant to buy certain real property for six thousand five hundred dollars. Of this the sum of five hundred dollars was paid on the execution of the contract, and subsequently a mortgage on the property of one thousand dollars was paid by defendant, and that amount was duly credited. Subsequent payments were to be made annually, and defendant also agreed to pay taxes…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Shoemaker v. AckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Turner v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Joyce v. ShaferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Oursler v. ThacherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Krobitzsch v. MiddletonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Morgan v. DibbleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Gillis v. Bonelli-Adams Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Wilson v. BeazleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Hawes v. LuxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.