Legal Opinion
Robben v. Benson
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 8, 1919No. Civ. No. 2013PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
W. A. ANDERSON, J., pro tem.
This is in form an action to quiet title brought by the vendor against the vendees upon an alleged forfeiture by the vendees under a contract for the sale of real property, and the main point urged by appellants for a reversal of the judgment is that the law of the case has been violated. It is also urged that intervention should have been denied.
The complaint contains two counts. The first count is in the usual form employed in an action to quiet title. The second count alleges that on December 6, 1911, the plaintiff, William B. Robben, made an agreement with the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Kyle v. CraigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Isaacs v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- People v. FickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Los Angeles & Arizona Land Co. v. MarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Vang Construction Co. v. MarcocciaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
- State v. GorhamUtah Supreme Court · 1937
- Burr v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Dalton v. GoreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928