Legal Opinion

Platner v. Vincent

California Supreme Court

Decided September 18, 1924No. Sac. No. 3454PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

This appeal is from a judgment awarding damages for the breach of the covenants of title and quiet enjoyment contained in a deed of real property executed by the defendant and her husband, as grantors, to the plaintiff, as grantee. The appeal is taken on the judgment-roll alone.

The amended complaint was before us for review upon an appeal from the judgment entered after demurrer sustained without leave to amend. (Platner v. Vincent, 187 Cal. 443 [202 Pac. 655].)

On June 5, 1916, plaintiff and C. H. Vincent, husband of defendant-appellant, Lillian Vincent, agreed to an exchange of properties…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. McGoon v. ScalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  3. Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Marston v. RueWashington Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Gee v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Bohn v. WatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Kelley v. Hodge Transportation SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Holland v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Evans v. FaughtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Stevinson Water District v. RodunerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

10 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