Reynolds v. Borel
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Per curiam
This action was brought to recover a deposit of money made by the plaintiff, Reynolds, to bind his purchase of land from the defendant, Borel. A part of the contract was, that the plaintiff—the purchaser — should be allowed twenty days from the date of the contract within which to search the title to the property, and if the title was found to be “ imperfect, and cannot be made good, said deposit will be returned.”
The plaintiff submitted a proper abstract of title to *539the land to his attorney, who, within the specified time, pronounced the title imperfect, and objected to it on these grounds: —
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Turner v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by16 opinions
- Sheehy v. MilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Ogg v. HermanMontana Supreme Court · 1924
- Crim v. UmbsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Barbour v. FlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Muller v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.