Legal Opinion
Pritchard v. McLeod
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 5, 1913No. 2,206PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDietrich, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The view that the agreement is a mere option is untenable. The “party of the first part agrees to sell and the party of the second part agrees to buy. * * * The intent and purpose of this agreement is that the party of the first part sells to the party of the second part all his real and personal property,” etc. So reads the instrument. The obligation of McLeod to pay the items of $1,500 and $2,-500 (evidenced by two promissory notes), upon November 6, 1908, and April 6, 1909, respectively, is absolute, and wholly independent of any contingency whatsoever.
The…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Nash v. TowneSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Merriam v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Nunez v. DautelSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Canal Co. v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Page v. CookMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- In Re Waterson, Berlin & Snyder Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Mechanical Ice Tray Corp. v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Watchorn v. Roxana Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Taylor v. Kingman Feldspar Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1933
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. SchlottmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.