Legal Opinion

Williams v. Long

California Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1903No. Sac. No. 805PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. F. W. Street, Percy V. Long, and C. C. Hamilton, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff’s intestate, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial, they appeal. The appeal from the judgment has by this court been dismissed (Williams v. Long, 130 Cal. 58 1 ), and there remains for consideration only the order denying the motion for a new trial. Plaintiff’s intestate, Henry Williams, who owned the claim, and the defendant Long, entered into an agreement for its sale and purchase, the contract providing, among other things, for a payment, though not the final one, at a given time, of ten thousand dollars. Williams executed a deed…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Grey v. TubbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Settle v. WintersIdaho Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Williams v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Rhorer v. BilaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Hannan v. McNickleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Van Horn v. Pacific Refining & Roofing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  2. Lowe v. San Francisco & Northwestern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Crescent Feather Co. v. United Upholsterers' Union, Local No. 28California Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Bennie v. Becker-Franz Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Hanschka v. VodopichSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906

1 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