Moss v. Wilson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Third District, Alameda County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. Tbe proposition of Sloan and Hartman was made, not to any persons by name, but to such as should undersign or subscribe.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Third District, Alameda County. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. Tbe proposition of Sloan and Hartman was made, not to any persons by name, but to such as should undersign or subscribe. In tbe light of tbe subject to wbicb tbe contract related, it may be correctly assumed that tbe object and expectation of Hartman and Sloan was to get so many of tbe settlers (squatters) on tbe Mission lands as would secure to them tbe fees they were desirous to earn or secure, without reference to who tbe subscribers might be. On tbe other band, tbe squatters, as they…
1Opinion of the Court
Temple, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court, Cuock-ett, J., Bhodes, C. J., and Wallace, J., concurring:
In 1857 Sloan and Hartman, plaintiffs assignors, made a proposition in writing to tbe settlers on tbe land known as tbe “Pico claim” (wbicb claim was tben pending in tbe United States'Courts for confirmation), to assist tbe Government of tbe United States in opposing tbe confirmation of tbe claim; and to furnish tbe necessary evidence therefor, the settlers to pay in band tbe sum of five hundred dollars to enable Sloan and Hartman to defray tbe necessary expenses of litigation, and to pay…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Ward v. WatermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Spangenberg v. SpangenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Los Angeles National Bank v. VanceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- George Herz & Co. v. SoltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- City of Butte v. CohenMontana Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.