Peckham v. Stewart
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The defendant entered into a written agreement with plaintiffs, by which he agreed to execute to them on or before December 1, 1888, a conveyance of certain described lots which would vest in plaintiffs “ a good and perfect title ” thereto, provided that plaintiffs should, on or before that date, pay the sum of $8,675, the balance of the purchase price agreed to be paid for such lots. The plaintiffs paid one thousand dollars on account of the purchase price at the date of the agreement. This action is to recover damages from defendant for an *150alleged failure on his part to make to plaintiffs a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Turner v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Sheehy v. MilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Bakeman v. PoolerNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Dennis v. StrassburgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. LampeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Pitt v. MallalieuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Haye v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1978
- Muller v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Cockrill v. BoasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.