Legal Opinion
Briles v. Paulson
California Supreme Court
Decided May 15, 1915No. Sac. No. 2181PublishedCited by 8 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to obtain a decree declaring that the rights of the defendant under a certain written contract were terminated. The contract was executed by the plaintiff and one J. J. Payseur. The defendant, Paulson, is the assignee and successor in interest of Payseur.
By the terms of the contract, which was dated December 5, 1910, Briles, in consideration of a payment of one hundred dollars, granted to Payseur the option of purchasing certain lands in Modoc County for seventeen thousand dollars, at any time up to December 31, 1915. Payseur was to have a subdivision of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Richardson v. HardwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Steele v. BondSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- White v. Bank of HanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gloyd v. Midwest Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
- Cillessen v. Kona CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1964
- Rosenaur v. PacelliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Briles v. PaulsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Compton Land Co. v. VaughanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.