Legal Opinion
Cherry v. Hayden
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 14, 1950No. Civ. 17747PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.
Appellants demand a reversal of a money judgment on the grounds that (1) the evidence does not support it and (2) the trial court grievously erred in its rulings.
Respondent .is the assignee of American Athletic Company, a copartnership composed of Joseph Szabo, Solomon Szabo and Maury W. Wayne. Assignors haying a verbal option on lots owned by appellants for $18,500 caused plans and specifications for the construction of a two-story industrial building to be prepared by their, own architect and obtained a bid from an engineering company in Pasadena to erect the building for $157,000.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- People v. HustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Philpott v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- People v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- Hicks v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1941
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Flores v. ArroyoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Broadway Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association and Robert G. Litolff v. William HaydenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Seekamp v. SmallWashington Supreme Court · 1951
- Voss v. FriedgenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.