Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Wolff v. Cloyne

California Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1909No. L.A. No. 2316PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The complaint states a cause of action to enforce specific performance of the following contract:—

“Oxnard, December 29, ’06.
“I have this day sold to Tom Cloyne and Tom Cloyne has bought of M. L. Wolff a certain Pee of land some 245 acres more or less lying north of the Revolon & Dreyfus place and being the same Pee M. L. Wolff bought lately at 70.00 per acre one thousand dollars receipt of which is hereby acknowledged balance payable when deed is given subject to lease given to Otte.
“M. L. Wolff,
“Thoma…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Rianda v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cooley v. FrankWyoming Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Renden v. Geneva Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. Wolleson v. CoburnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  4. Tahoe Pines Co. v. NewmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. Cloyne v. LevyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API