Blahnik v. Small Farms Improvement Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Geo. A. Sturtevant, Judge. The fact's are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The defendant appeals from the judgment.
The object of the action was to recover $2,556.94, alleged to have been.paid by the plaintiff, Catherine C. Blahnik, to the defendant as a part of the purchase price of certain lands which the defendant had contracted to sell to said plaintiff, which contract, it is alleged, was rescinded by the plaintiff because of the failure of the defendant to perform the covenants therein contained. The plaintiff Joseph is the husband of the plaintiff Catherine, and has no other interest in the ease.
The contract of sale was executed on June 28, 1913. By its terms…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sivers v. SiversCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Lambert v. BatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Daly v. RuddellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
3Cited by21 opinions
- Ellis v. KlaffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Walker v. Harbor Business Blocks Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Crawford v. FranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Potter v. BlandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Anderson v. HurlbertOregon Supreme Court · 1923
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.