Legal Opinion

Collins v. Eksoozian

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 28, 1923No. Civ. No. 2564PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The plaintiffs instituted this action for the purpose of securing a decree foreclosing, or declaring forfeited, all rights acquired by the defendant under a written contract whereby the former agreed to sell and convey to the defendant and the latter agreed to purchase from said plaintiffs a certain tract of land situated in Tulare County.

The defendant was given judgment, from which the plaintiffs appeal on a bill of exceptions.

The agreement was entered into on the twenty-second day of September, 1919, and contains, among others, the following provisions and terms: That the purchase price of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Glock v. Howard & Wilson Colony Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Grey v. TubbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Newton v. HullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Frost v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Martin v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Barkis v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Barkis v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Henck v. Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Breitman v. GattmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Freeman v. LindCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

3 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