Legal Opinion
Jackson v. Torrence
California Supreme Court
Decided April 1, 1890No. Nos. 13133 and 13175PublishedCited by 52 opinions
Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, and appeal of M. H. Torrence from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.
The defendants are husband and wife, and the suit is to compel specific performance of the following agreement:—■
“ For and in consideration of the sum of five hundred dollars to us in hand paid by C. F. Thomas and George H. Jackson, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, wre, the undersigned, do hereby agree that on the first day of February, 1886, we will execute and deliver to said C. F. Thomas and George H. Jackson, or their assignees, a good and sufficient deed to all that real property in the town of Woodland, county of Yolo, and state of California, known as the Capital Hotel…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Love v. WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- People ex rel. Stratton v. OultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Schuyler v. BroughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Kraemer v. KraemerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- McComb v. SpanglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Hall v. WeatherfordArizona Supreme Court · 1927
- Miller v. DyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Retsloff v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Ward v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Nilson v. SarmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.