Born v. Castle
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtKerrigan, J.
This is an action to recover the sum of two "thousand dollars paid as a deposit on account of the purchase of real property.
The appeal is by plaintiff from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The circumstances attending the negotiations for the sale of the property and the payment of the deposit are as follows:
Baldwin & Howell, real estate dealers in San Francisco, at no time mentioned in this ease had any agreement in writing to sell the property described in the complaint. David Hirschler, an employee of Baldwin & Howell, called on the defendants for the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Frost v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- The Title & Document Restoration Co. v. KerriganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Grain v. AldrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. EllingtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Dieckmann v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Gallagher v. California Pacific Title & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Union Lumber Co. v. J. W. Schouten & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1914
- Sweet v. HamilothorisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Barr v. CarrollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.