Legal Opinion

Beardsley v. Clem

California Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 1902No. L.A. No. 1066PublishedCited by 21 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Rescission. Defendants had judgment, from which plaintiffs appeal on the judgment-roll alone.

The original plaintiffs were Clarence L. Beardsley and Grace M. Beardsley, his wife. Defendants were husband and wife. Aftér a demurrer had been sustained to the complaint, and pending demurrer to the amended complaint, plaintiff Clarence died, and plaintiff Grace was substituted as administratrix of her husband’s estate, and a supplementary and amended complaint was filed, which was answered, and the cause was tried by the court on these pleadings.

Plaintiffs owned a ten-acre tract of land…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. McDougald v. HuletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Carpy v. DowdellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Ortega v. CorderoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Horton v. DominguezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Silvers v. GrossmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Freeman v. Gray-Cowan, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Peck v. NoeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Crofoot Lumber, Inc. v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  5. Johnson v. SchimpfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

16 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