Legal Opinion

Murray v. Green

California Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1883PublishedCited by 38 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.

When this case was here on a former appeal, the court said: —

“ The nature and effect of the instrument executed by and between Mary Ann Roussel and husband and McLeran, has not been discussed by counsel, but they treat it as a deed of conveyance, and no objection is suggested as to the validity of any of the clauses of the instrument. One of those clauses prohibits McLeran from selling, conveying, or otherwise disposing of any of the lands without the written consent of Mary Ann Roussel. The deed of McLeran to Murray, made during the pendency of the action of MeLeran v. McNamara et al.,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mandlebaum v. McDonellMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Yount v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  3. Sprague v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Woodbury v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Carma Developers (California), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Coast Bank v. MinderhoutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Harris v. BarnhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Burnett v. PiercyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Kessner v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905

33 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