Bacon v. Davis
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A. A. Sanderson, Reed, Black & Reed, and John Garber, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The importance of the principle and the value of the property involved justify a somewhat extended consideration of the transaction out of which has grown this litigation.
The action was brought to determine the validity of an adverse claim made by the appellant, defendant Davis, to certain real property on Broadway street, in the city of Oakland. Davis claims to have purchased the property, and in his amended answer and cross-complaint he sets forth the basis of this claim as resting in: First, a contract between plaintiff and the Laymance Real Estate Company, by which the said company was…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Duffy v. HobsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Rice v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Haydock v. . StowNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Chung Kee v. DavidsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Armstrong v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Commission on Ecumenical Mission & Relations of the United Presbyterian Church v. Roger Gray, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Montgomery v. DornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- McKeever v. Oregon Mortgage Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921
- Conley v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1934
- McCartney v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.