Legal Opinion
Haidopoulos v. Woollett
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 13, 1935No. Civ. No. 5267PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOODWARD, J., pro tem.
Specific performance of an agreement for the exchange of real property was denied plaintiffs and they appeal from the judgment, which was in favor of the defendants on all the issues joined.
Omitting unnecessary minutiae, the facts of the controversy may be epitomized as follows: On March 19, 1932, the parties executed a written contract under the terms of which plaintiffs ’ ten-acre citrus grove, situated near Yuma, Arizona, was to be exchanged for defendants’ ten-unit bungalow, situated in Los Angeles County, together with $1500 in cash. The Arizona property was to be…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cross v. BouckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Windsor v. MinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Bonney v. PettyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Porter v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- Rittigstein v. DignanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- J. J. Howell & Associates, Inc. v. AntoniniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Nordin v. WedlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948