Legal Opinion
Marks v. Bunker
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 4, 1958No. Civ. 5745PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COUGHLIN, J. pro tem. *
This is an action for specific performance. In her complaint, the plaintiff Marks alleged that defendant Peterman was the owner of Lot 1, Tract 2924 in San Bernardino; that the defendant Bunker was the agent of Peterman, and at all times mentioned in the complaint was acting within the scope of his agency; that on September 3, 1950, both defendants entered into an agreement in writing with plaintiff to sell her the subject property for $550, which was the reasonable value thereof; and that the plaintiff performed her part of the agreement but the defendants have refused…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Benner v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Safway Steel Products, Inc. v. LefeverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- John Hampton and Dorothy Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Miller v. JohnstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Johnson v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Dickens v. BunkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.