Legal Opinion

Simpson v. Schurra

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 8, 1928No. Docket No. 5816PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J., pro tem.

This is an action by the purchasers to recover from the vendors damages for breach of a contract for the sale of real property.

The court found that the defendants Schurra refused in bad faith to perform the contract; that the plaintiffs had performed all of the conditions thereof on their part to be performed and suffered certain damages by reason of defendants’ nonperformance, and that defendants Meiling did not refuse to perform, but were ready and willing to do so. Judgment was rendered against both defendants Schurra for the amount of the damages so found, and from this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Craig v. ZelianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Marriner v. DennisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Lange v. WatersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of AnaheimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  2. Beverage v. Canton Placer Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Nineteenth Realty Co. v. DiggsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Roberts v. LebrainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Dennis v. OverholtzerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

4 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