Gero v. Richey
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The appeal is from a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs for the sum of $226.98, they being dissatisfied with the amount awarded. The controversy is over the question whether they should have been allowed interest on deferred payments under a contract of sale of real property.
The matter was presented to the court on a motion to strike out certain portions of the complaint, and there is no objection to the form of the procedure, it being admitted by appellants that “the sole point in dispute in the case was, and is, whether under the said contract of sale the plaintiffs, as vendors of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Burns v. Sennett & MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Hayt v. BentelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- City of Los Angeles v. City BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Loyalton Electric Light Co. v. California Pine Box & Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
- Taber v. Piedmont Heights Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Neal v. State Farm Insurance CompaniesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- People v. MeravigliaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Yule v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Sharpe v. Arabian American Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Upton v. GouldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.