Brown v. Central Land Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal Rom the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Alameda County. This was an action to quiet title to certain lands in Oakland Township, Alameda County. The defendants Day, Palmer, Bradley, Haswell, McLean, and Hardy, disclaimed. To the answer of The Central Land Company, setting up the contract between Brown and wife and Taylor, the plaintiffs demurred. The demurrer having been sustained, and defendant declining to amend, there was a judgment for plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal Rom the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Alameda County. This was an action to quiet title to certain lands in Oakland Township, Alameda County. The defendants Day, Palmer, Bradley, Haswell, McLean, and Hardy, disclaimed. To the answer of The Central Land Company, setting up the contract between Brown and wife and Taylor, the plaintiffs demurred. The demurrer having been sustained, and defendant declining to amend, there was a judgment for plaintiffs. The defendant appealed.
1Concurrence 1
By Crockett, J., Sprague, J., concurring:
The substance and legal effect of the contract between Taylor and plaintiffs may be summed up as follows: That *260the plaintiffs agreed that at any time within the two years next ensuing, Taylor might purchase for himself, or sell to others, the whole or any portion of the land now in controversy, at a price not less than one thousand dollars in gold coin per acre; but if sold for a larger price, the excess over that sum should go to Taylor; and on receiving the said sum of one thousand dollars per acre in ready money they would surrender the possession…
Also in this document: Concurrence · Rhodes.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Andrews v. WaldoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Morton v. MorrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901
- Oakdale Mercantile Co. v. BaerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932