Legal Opinion

Tuohy v. Moore

California Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1901No. Sac. No. 806PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Action to rescind an agreement for the sale of land. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the order denying his motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

The land in question was part of a much larger tract belonging to one Vaughan, who had mortgaged it to plaintiff. Foreclosure suit was begun September 8, 1896, and the land was sold under decree on March 20, 1897, plaintiff becoming the purchaser. A certificate of sale was issued to plaintiff, reciting, among other things, that if no redemption was made he would be entitled to a deed in twelve months from date of sale, and a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barnitz v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Klauber v. San Diego St.-Car Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Benson v. BuntingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Savings Bank of San Diego v. BarrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Fresno Milling Co. v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hensler v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Eucalyptus Growers Ass'n v. Orange County Nursery & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Polich Trading Co. v. Billings Hudson Terraplane Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Johnson v. WunnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Summers v. HammellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API