Legal Opinion

Menveg v. Fishbaugh

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 13, 1932No. Docket No. 8252PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

This is an action for specific performance. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and from this judgment defendants have appealed.

Substantially, the facts are as follows: On February 14, 1927, appellants Rufus H. Fishbaugh and Rosella S. Fishbaugh, residing at Markle, Indiana, were the owners of two certain lots in the city of Wilmington, Los Angeles County, California, and on that day appellant Ernest C. Fishbaugh, the son of the said Fishbaughs, without the knowledge of his said parents, signed a written contract by the terms of which he agreed to sell to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Zellner v. WassmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Ballard v. NyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Moss v. AtkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Laack v. DimmickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Promis v. DukeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. San Francisco Hotel Co. v. BaiorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  2. Kerner v. Hughes Tool Co.California Court of Appeal · 1976
  3. Wilbur v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Martin v. BairdCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Simmons v. Birge Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1943

1 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