Legal Opinion

White v. Arthur

California Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1881No. 7,505PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of Humboldt County. Hatees, J. A petition for hearing in Bank was filed in this case after judgment, and denied.

1Opinion of the Court

McKinstry, J.:

The suit is brought to compel specific performance qf an award and for damages, etc.

The submission was limited to all matters of difference “with regard to the exchange of lands on Kick-a-waket Creek,” and to “ the matter of the construction of a line fence to divide the lands of the parties to this agreement.” The award requires the conveyance of tracts of land, on the payment of prices fixed therein, from one party to the other. The line of the fence is not fixed, except on condition that the conveyances be made, no provision is made for an exchange of lands, and some of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Noble v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1806

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ulene v. Murray Millman of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. B. S. B. Construction Co. v. Rex Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API