Legal Opinion
Marriner v. Dennison
California Supreme Court
Decided January 29, 1889No. 12848PublishedCited by 48 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
Action by the vendee for damages for the breach of a contract to convey real estate.
The memorandum of agreement to convey was as follows:—
“ This agreement made this day between G. L. Dennison, of Los Angeles, and J. U. Marriner, of Vineland, California, is as follows:—■
“ Said Dennison agrees to convey to said Marriner *205lots one, two, thirty-three, thirty-four, sixty, and fifty-nine in his subdivision of the Magee tract, and for same six lots said Marriner agrees to convey to said Dennison the ten acres with new house and improvements on same built by him, and lot number fifty-two, building…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Stanley v. SutherlandIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
- Stanley v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Baldwin v. KerlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Quinnin v. ReimersMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Colerick v. HooperIndiana Supreme Court · 1852
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- People v. DurrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Railroad Management Co. v. CFS Louisiana Midstream Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
- Beverage v. Canton Placer Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Russell v. RammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Sonnesyn v. AkinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.