Legal Opinion

Backman v. Park

California Supreme Court

Decided April 14, 1910No. L.A. No. 2399PublishedCited by 22 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This action is by the vendor to recover damages for defendant’s breach of agreement to purchase certain real property situate in the city of Redondo Beach. By stipulation, many of the important facts were agreed upon. At the time of the execution of the contract the title to the property stood in the name of Kate Minerva Backman Palmer, a daughter of Mary Backman, plaintiff, and there was nothing of record to disclose that plaintiff had any title to or interest in the property. But, as provided by and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, plaintiff immediately procured the execution…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Dresel v. JordanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  3. Shively v. Semi-Tropic Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Daily ex rel. Daily v. MinnickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  5. Joyce v. ShaferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Craig v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Lemle v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Winkler v. JerrueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  4. Anderson v. WillsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  5. Brimmer v. SalisburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

17 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