Legal Opinion

Tandy v. Waesch

California Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1908No. L.A. No. 2038PublishedCited by 12 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. Charles Monroe, Judge. .The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of one thousand dollars, paid on account of the purchase price of a piece of land under contract with defendant, whereby defendant agreed to convey the land by a title free and clear of all encumbrances. Pie averred that defendants’ title was encumbered by restrictions, reservations, and covenants as follows :—

“It is hereby covenanted and agreed, by and between the parties hereto, and it is part of the consideration of this conveyance, that no main building shall be erected or suffered to remain upon the premises hereby conveyed that is not reasonably worth…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Giselman v. StarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Quatman v. McCrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Wetmore v. . BruceNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  4. Walker v. McCuskerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Anglo-Californian Bank, Ltd. v. CerfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Evans v. FaughtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  2. Security Trust & Savings Bank v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Riley v. MillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Walter L. Tally, Inc. v. CouncilCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  5. McIntyre v. HicksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

7 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