Legal Opinion

O'Hara v. Wattson

California Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1916No. S. F. No. 6383. In BankPublishedCited by 31 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] In this case a rehearing, after the decision in department, was ordered mainly for the purpose of having the whole court consider and pass upon an important question frequently arising and upon which our decisions seem to be considered uncertain.

There is no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that, under subdivision 1 of section 3391 of the Civil Code, the courts of this state should not enforce specific performance of a contract unless the consideration…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Seymour v. DelanceyNew York Court of Chancery · 1822

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Casey v. ProctorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Jacks v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  5. In Re Estate of BrixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API