Montgomery v. Sturdivant
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The Court below gave judgment for the plaintiff, directing the defendant to perform specifically the contract mentioned in the opinion. The defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Temple, J.:
On the 12th day of March, 1864, Bridget M. Evoy, for an expressed consideration of one thousand dollars, conveyed to Z. Montgomery, and Ellen, his wife (the said Ellen being the daughter of the grantor), a tract of land. The premises of the deed contain no words of inheritance, but simply grant, bargain, convey, and confirm to parties of the second part a specific tract of land. The habendum is as follows:
“ To have and to hold all and singular the above mentioned and described premises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said parties of the second part, and to…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Barnett v. BarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Utter v. SidmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Parks v. GatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Beedy v. FinneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.