Kerr v. Moore
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San "Joaquin County and from an order denying a new trial. ,W. B. Nutter, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
This is an action for specific performance. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the" order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Appellant claims that the record discloses quite a number of errors, but "there are only three specifications that we deem of sufficient importance to justify special notice.
1. The contention that the complaint does not state a cause of action is based upon the assumption that sufficient facts are not alleged to show the adequacy of the consideration and the element of mutuality in the contract. In Windsor v. Miner, 124 Cal. 492, [57 Pac.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bruck v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- City of Sacramento v. ClunieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Sayward v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Windsor v. MinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- De Arguello v. BoursCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Muller v. CooperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Kiser v. Douglas CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- State of California v. AgostiniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Reese v. SmokerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
- Glover v. BergerWyoming Supreme Court · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.