Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Bailey

California Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1937No. Sac. 4993PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

Plaintiff sought by this action to compel a reconveyance by defendants to her of property, formerly owned by her, under a written option by her grantee to re-convey the property to her upon the performance by her of certain conditions. The facts, which are practically undisputed, are as follows: Plaintiff, prior to August 25, 1932, was the owner of a parcel of land in Eureka, California, upon which was located a service station. Having become involved financially, upon the 25th day of August, 1932, she entered into an agreement with the defendant, F. M. Bailey, whereby she conveyed this real…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dickerson v. ColgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Glass v. HulbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  4. Notten v. MensingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Anderson v. HubbleIndiana Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeTothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Monarco v. Lo GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Wade v. Markwell & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Wilk v. VencillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Garcia v. World Savings, FSBCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

35 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