Taber v. Piedmont Heights Building Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from an order refusing a new trial. Wm. S. Wells, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
This is an action, for the rescission of a contract for the purchase of a certain lot designated as lot 35 in block D upon defendant’s map of Piedmont Knoll, Oakland, and to recover judgment for the money paid on account of said purchase. Plaintiff had judgment as prayed for from which, and from an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
The pleadings are verified and most of the material averments of the complaint on which plaintiff relies were denied in the answer. As the findings follow quite closely the averments of the complaint the issues will sufficiently appear…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Colton v. StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hayt v. BentelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Morris v. CourtneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Kiger v. the McCarthy Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
3Cited by12 opinions
- Wilson v. Rigali & VeselichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Brooks v. JensenIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- Bridges v. FiskCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Wood & Tatum Co. v. BaslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Harder v. AllredCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.