Legal Opinion
Urciolo v. Sachs
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 18, 1948No. 692PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Associate Judge.
This was an action for damages for breach of a contract to convey real property. Sachs contracted to buy the property from DeMarco and in turn contracted to sell to Thomas who assigned his contract to Urciolo. DeMarco did not convey to Sachs and consequently Sachs could not convey to Urciolo. This action was brought by Urciolo against Sachs. '
Thomas had made a $500 deposit with Sachs and Urciolo paid Thomas $600, representing the deposit plus $100 profit to Thomas. In addition Urciolo paid out $16 in title examination fees. The trial court awarded Urciolo judgment for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Louisville & N. R. v. R. E. E. De Montluzin Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1928
- Murray v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Branson v. ReichelderferCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1933
- Palmer v. Penobscot Lumbering Ass'nSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rock Creek Plaza-Woodner Ltd. Partnership v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- CHH CAPITAL HOTEL PARTNERS, LP v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2017
- Fallin v. RoeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1953
- Morris v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982