Legal Opinion

Elm v. Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1933No. Docket No. Sac. 4616PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

Appeal by defendants from judgment for plaintiffs in an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real property. Plaintiffs alleged that they had paid in full for said property and were entitled to a conveyance thereof from defendants. Defendants admitted the contract and part payment of the purchase price, but denied that the balance of said price, amounting to some $640, had been paid. Upon the trial plaintiffs introduced in evidence the entire transcript of the record in a prior action brought by them in the federal court against defendant lands company for damages for fraud…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Price v. Sixth District Agricultural Assn.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Bingham v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Sutphin v. SpeikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. McLaughlin Land & Livestock Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
  3. English v. EnglishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Brunswig Drug Co. v. SpringerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Nevada Land Inv. Corp. v. SistrunkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934

11 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