Bonney v. Petty
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BURROUGHS, J., pro tem.
This action was brought for the specific performance of a contract to convey real property. The court found that the defendant George M. Petty, the vendor named in said contract, could not specifically per form and in lieu thereof awarded the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $7,500, and the additional sum of $500, paid to said defendant in pursuance of the terms of the contract. The action was upon motion for a nonsuit dismissed as to the other defendants. The defendant Petty has appealed. He brought the record to this court under the alternative method.
The first error…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Stiles v. CainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Baker v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Joyce v. TomasiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Miller v. GustaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Weissich v. BehrensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lifton v. HarshmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Ades v. BrushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Steffen v. Refrigeration Discount Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Drullinger v. ErskineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- O'Melia v. AdkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.