Quatman v. McCray
California Supreme Court
The prayer of the complaint was that the defendant be compelled to reconvey the lots 16 and 17 to the plaintiff, and that the defendant be adjudged to have no right therein, and that plaintiff have possession of the premises; and the judgment awarded the relief prayed for. Further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to have the title to certain real property adjudged forfeited on the ground that a building condition in the deed had been broken. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant appeals.
The findings set forth a series of facts leading up to the sale by plaintiff to defendant of certain four lots in Menlo Park tract, Los Angeles county, among which were lots 16 and 17 in block D. The action is to have these two lots declared forfeited for violation of the following condition in the deed: “And this conveyance is made upon the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cleary v. FolgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Klauber v. San Diego St.-Car Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Parsons v. SmilieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Liebrand v. OttoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Wolverton v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
- Firth v. MarovichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Fitzgerald v. County of ModocCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Los Angeles & Arizona Land Co. v. MarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Chadbourne v. ChadbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.