Legal Opinion

Bogart v. Crosby & Van Haren

California Supreme Court

Decided September 19, 1891No. 14169PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.

This appeal is by the defendants Remondino, Daggett, and Witfield from a judgment against them in favor of plaintiff.

It appears that defendants Crosby & Van Harén were verbally authorized by appellants to sell for them a certain tract of land in San Diego, and acting under this authority, they agreed to sell the same to plaintiff, and received from him the sum of three hundred dollars as a deposit on the contract. No deed could be made at the time on account of the absence of the appellant Remondino, the plaintiff being assured by defendant Van Harén that he would return within two weeks.…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Frost v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Cowell v. SnyderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Union Lumber Co. v. J. W. Schouten & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1914
  4. Hough v. Reserve Gold Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1934
  5. González Reyes v. González ReyesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1932

2 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