Legal Opinion

Calanchini v. Branstetter

California Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1890No. 12627PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

This is an action to enforce the specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of laud.

The land in controversy is a strip containing about eight acres, which lies along the south side and is a part of a certain forty-acre government subdivision of land in Humboldt County.

The facts of the case, as found by the court, and undisputed, are as follows: One Baldwin owned the forty-acre tract above mentioned, and one Chamberlin owned the forty-acre tract adjoining it on the south. The line dividing their lands was undetermined and uncertain, and they disagreed as to where the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hall v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Arguello v. EdingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  3. Weber v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Ballard v. CarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Fowler v. SutherlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Davis v. JudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Brown v. Town of SebastopolCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Magee v. MageeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Engasser v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API