Drullinger v. Erskine
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The defendants have appealed from a judgment for specific performance of an option to purchase real property for an agreed price of $8,500.
The appellants contend that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for the reason that there is an absence of allegations that the consideration is adequate, or that the transaction is fair and just as to the defendants. It is also asserted the option contained in plaintiff’s lease was superseded by a later valid agreement to sell the land for the same price to the United States Department of Agriculture, which took the second option as security…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Howland v. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Baker v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Schader v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Ades v. BrushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Morrill v. EversonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Steiner v. ThextonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Priebe v. SinclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Estate of StevensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Estate of ClausseniusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Associates Discount Corp. v. Tobb Co.California Court of Appeal · 1966
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.