Shaw v. Caldwell
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
On February 5, 1904, plaintiff was the owner of the Hunter creek mine. On said date, by a grant, bargain and sale deed, he conveyed to E. Caldwell and E. F. Caldwell “an undivided one-half interest in and to” said mine. It is recited in said deed that it was “for and in consideration of one dollar to him in hand paid by the parties of the second part,” and also “it being one of the considerations of this conveyance, that said parties of the second part will, during the period in which the party of the first part shall be the owner of the remaining one-half of said mine, do and perform at…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lawrence v. GayettyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Behlow v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Richter v. RichterIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Wheeler v. WestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Manning v. FrazierIllinois Supreme Court · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- J. Bryant Kasey and Maryann Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Von Goerlitz v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Atlantic-Pacific Oil Co. v. Gas Development Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1937
- Gas Appliance Sales Co. v. W. B. Bastian Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Smith v. Royal Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.