Legal Opinion

O'Donnell v. Lutter

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 14, 1945No. Civ. 14616PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to specifically enforce an alleged agreement to sell real property, which agreement was predicated upon certain letters which passed between plaintiffs and Henry J. Lutter during the latter’s lifetime; or to recover damages for the breach of said agreement if, for any reason, specific performance could not be decreed. Named as defendants are the two executors of the last will and testament of Henry J. Lutter as well as the latter’s eight heirs at law.

Only the executors appeared in the action and a general *379demurrer was filed in their behalf. Following a hearing…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Grafton v. CummingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Breckinridge v. CrockerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Prince v. LambCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. O'Connell v. LampeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. King v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeTothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Wilk v. VencillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Henderson v. FisherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Erickson v. BootheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

14 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