Legal Opinion

Eames v. Haver

California Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1896No. L. A. No. 50PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County granting a new trial. John L-Campbell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Vanclief, C.

The complaint in this action may be stated substantially as follows:

In May, 1893, the defendant purchased from plaintiff twenty acres of land with orange grove thereon, for which he was to pay $8,000 in cash, and assign and deliver to plaintiff one hundred shares of the capital stock of a corporation named “Bear Valley and Alessandro *403Development Company.” As a part of the transaction, however, it was agreed that, on demand of the plaintiff, the defendant would exchange for said stock an equal number of shares of the stock of a corporation named" Bear Valley Irrigation Company,”…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Davis v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Hanson v. SlavenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Atherton v. FowlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Kern Valley Bank v. ChesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Woods v. MerrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Schultz v. O'RourkeMontana Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Huglin v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
  3. Brandelius v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Brandelius v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API