Legal Opinion
House v. McMullen
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 19, 1909No. Civ. No. 317PublishedCited by 7 opinions
The facts are stated in' the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action was brought for the reformation of a written instrument and for specific performance. From the judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant appealed on the judgment-roll. The said instrument is in the following words and figures:
“Fresno, Cal., Nov. 5, 1906.
“This agreement entered into by and between J. H. House, party of the first' part, and R. A. McMullen, party of the second part; whereas, the party of the first part agrees to sell to the party of the second part the following described property, to wit: Lot's 7 and 8 in block 64 known as the Demenlo, and the party of the second part…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Craig v. ZelianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Breckinridge v. CrockerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Ward v. WatermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Lestrade v. BarthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Van Slyke v. Broadway InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cantlay v. Olds & Stoller Inter-ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Wilson v. SheaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Merkle v. MerkleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Oatman v. NiemeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Metropolitan Casualty Insurance v. StoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.