Legal Opinion

Blochman v. Spreckels

California Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1902No. L.A. No. 931PublishedCited by 24 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Defendant became the purchaser of certain lots belonging to plaintiff in the city of Coronado, at a sale for non-payment of interest on a bond issued to a contractor to represent the assessment against plaintiff’s said lots for street work. The action is to restrain defendant from applying for a deed and to quiet plaintiff’s title, as against said sale. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the order denying his motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

The controversy grows out of the improvement of Orange Avenue in said city, which improvement was made under the Street…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brown v. JenksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Adams v. HelbingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Alameda MacAdamizing Co. v. PringleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Morrison v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Gould v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Inge v. Board of Public Works of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
  2. St. Joseph Light & Power Co. v. Kaw Valley Tunneling, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1979
  3. Hoyt v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Gay v. EngebretsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Schisel v. MarvillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924

19 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