Haynes v. White
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the defendants, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Seventeenth District Court, County of Los Angeles. Sepulveda, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Ross, J.:
This action, as the case is presented, cannot be maintained. The record shows that on March 1st, 1876, the defendants were in the possession of the land described in the complaint, by virtue of a contract for its purchase from one Robinson, who held the title to it. Upon the land there were then existing certain improvements, consisting of a house and an artesian well. On *40the day named the defendants executed with plaintiff the contract in writing set out in the complaint, by which the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff to buy of the defendants, the land in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morrison v. LodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by13 opinions
- Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Gates v. McLeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Garvey v. LashellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Boekelheide v. SnyderSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1947
- Gervaise v. BrookinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.