Legal Opinion

Hull v. Ray

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 15, 1926No. Docket No. 3182PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (R. L.), J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of defendant in a suit to rescind a contract to purchase certain registered' cattle. Appellant asserts that the findings of the trial court are so conflicting and irreconcilable as to require the reversal of the judgment. The evidence adduced at the trial is not before this court.

The findings of the trial court were to the effect that on November 13, 1922, defendant agreed in writing to sell plaintiff fourteen head of registered cattle and four head of unregistered stock for the sum of $3,500; that said…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. J. S. Potts Drug Co. v. BenedictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. People v. OttoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Ames v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Johnson v. PowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Calpetro Producers Syndicate v. Chas M. Woods Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
  2. McKinney v. SargentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Hull v. RayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Selig Cahn, Inc. v. AlschulerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. State v. HeneaultSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981

2 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