Legal Opinion
Joost v. Craig
California Supreme Court
Decided February 7, 1901No. S.F. No. 1592PublishedCited by 28 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This is an action against a notary public and his sureties for damages charged to have resulted from the negligence of the notary.
As appears from the record, in April, 1891, one Fisher, who was a real estate broker in San Francisco, as such broker offered to sell to plaintiff ten lots of land situate in San Mateo county, then standing in the name of Charles A. Anderson. The lots were part of the Abbey Homestead Association’s lands. Plaintiff was familiar with these lands and had bought a portion of them. He contracted with Fisher at once for the property, agreeing to pay one thousand dollars…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Oakland Bank of Savings v. MurfeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- People v. LundinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- State ex rel. Kleinsorge v. MeyerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- State ex rel. Covenant Mutual Life Insurance v. BalmerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Jones v. BachNew York Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by28 opinions
- State ex rel. Matter v. John Ogden & American Surety Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Anderson v. AronsohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- American Surety Co. of New York v. First Nat. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Bank of America v. DowdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Garton v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1980
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.