Legal Opinion

Boro v. Ruzich

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 7, 1943No. Civ. 13949PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.

By their amended complaint filed herein plaintiffs allege that on or about June 15, 1941, defendant promised and agreed to sell to and put plaintiffs in possession of a certain house and lot located in the city of Los Angeles, and to execute a deed thereto on or before June 18, 1941. That in consideration of and as a part of said agreement plaintiffs promised to pay to defendant as the purchase price of said property the sum of $500 payable on or before June 15, 1944, without interest, and that plaintiffs agreed to accept the hereinbefore mentioned conveyance subject to an encumbrance upon…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. McDougald v. HuletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Prince v. LambCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Krasky v. WollpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  5. White v. SageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Steen v. RustadMontana Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Beverage v. Canton Placer Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Ades v. BrushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Drullinger v. ErskineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Friedrich v. RolandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

11 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