Legal Opinion

Brodsky v. Linder

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 8, 1955No. 1703PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

This was a suit for the amount of a check given as a deposit under a written contract for the purchase of real estate. Defendants refused to complete the purchase, and in the meantime the check had been returned unpaid because of insufficient funds. The trial court found for defendants and plaintiff brings this appeal.

It should be stated at the outset that defendants made no charge, that the plaintiff or her broker was responsible for the collapse of the deal. In their answer defendants said they had called the deal off because they were confronted with two emergencies. —…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Tudesco Et Ux. v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Kraft v. Michael Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  3. Barnette v. SayersCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  4. Sheffield v. Paul T. Stone, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  5. Portner v. TannerWyoming Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Isard v. ApplesteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1958
  2. Sampson v. McAdooCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  3. Davies v. BoydNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Davies v. BoydNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API