Legal Opinion

Ehrhart v. Mahony

California Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1915No. Sac. No. 2183PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Ben F. Geis, Duard F. Geis, and Will A. Dower, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

On September 27, 1910, the plaintiffs entered into a written contract with all of the defendants except Clifton, whereby plaintiffs agreed to sell, and said defendants agreed to buy, three mining claims in Calaveras County for the sum of three thousand dollars, of which fifty dollars was paid on the execution of the writing, and the balance was payable in installments. The vendees agreed to do all assessment work.

The complaint set up the contract, alleged an assignment by the vendees to Clifton, alleged, further, nonpayment of any part of the purchase price except the fifty dollars, the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Agard v. ValenciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Sparks v. HessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. White v. SageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Herzog v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R.R.California Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Longmaid v. CoulterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ingalls v. BellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Ehrhart v. MahonyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Paramore v. ColbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. Teague Investment Co. v. SetchelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Ocean Shore Development Co. v. HammondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API