Legal Opinion

Utemark v. Samuel

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 2, 1953No. Civ. 19463PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.

In this action plaintiffs had judgment for the rescission of a contract to purchase unimproved land for $10,000. The reason for the rescission was that while plaintiffs performed and offered to perform their agreement, the defendants refused to perform and to give a deed upon tender of the purchase price.

The date of the agreement was September 14, 1946, and the date of the judgment, January 24, 1952. During this interval plaintiffs were in possession and made valuable improvements, consisting of the construction of a shop for a welding business, and the installation of a small office building.

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gibert v. . PetelerNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
  2. McIndoe v. MormanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Fletcher v. FletcherSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  4. Montgomery v. MeyersteinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Larson v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Bodenhamer v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Erich v. GranoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  4. Scheherezade Sharabianlou v. KarpCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Wright v. LoweCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

8 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