Legal Opinion

Ross v. McDougal

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 27, 1936No. Civ. 1584PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

Plaintiffs brought this action to recover $600 principal and $139.82 interest, alleged to be due and unpaid on a conditional sales contract of real property Besides an swering, defendants filed a cross-complaint seeking to 'rescind the contract because of a partial failure of consideration. Judgment was rendered for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed.

Under date of July 21, 1930, plaintiffs and defendants executed an executory contract for the sale and purchase i of real property in Riverside County for the sum of $3,500, payable $100 in cash, $500 on or before August 1, 1930, $60Q on or…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. J. S. Potts Drug Co. v. BenedictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Perry v. QuackenbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Smith v. Phœnix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Conlin v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  5. McCarty v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jessup Farms v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Ross v. McDougalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Beaudry v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Ware v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Nelson v. SperlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969

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