Legal Opinion

Smith v. Bach

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1921No. Civ. No. 3614PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.

This action is one in assumpsit for money had and received. The case was once tried and judgment entered in favor of the defendants. On appeal to the supreme court that judgment was reversed (Smith v. Bach, 183 Cal. 259, [191 Pac. 14]). By the terms of the present judgment plaintiffs have failed to recover anything against the defendant Bach, and their recovery against the defendant Borgh has been limited to an amount less than their claim. Plaintiffs appeal from this judgment.

As determined on the former appeal, the contract which the parties attempted to make, providing for a sale of land by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smith v. BachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Richter v. Union Land & Stock Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Vickrey v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Pollak v. StauntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Marin Healthcare District v. Sutter HealthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Longway v. NewberyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939

11 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