Legal Opinion

Gordon v. Dufresne

California Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1928No. Docket No. L.A. 9568PublishedCited by 10 opinions

William L. Kuehn and Arthur S. Loveland for Re-spondent.

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

This is an action to enforce specific performance of the option clause contained in a written agreement of lease and option entered into by defendant as lessor! with plaintiff as lessee, which provided, in.part, as follows: “That the said Lessor has letten . . . and the said Lessee has hired and taken . . . Lots (describing lots 11-18, inc., Los Angeles county) . . . for a period of two years ... at the total rent of . . . $600, payable ... in equal monthly payments of $25.00, in gold coin of the United States of America, it is also expressly agreed by the Lessor that Lessee may at any time…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hall v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Cates v. McNeilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. De Rutte v. MuldrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Prichard v. KimballCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. O'Connell v. LampeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Spaulding v. Yovino-YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Crowell v. BralyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Humble Oil & Refining Company v. LennonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1962
  5. Bell v. MinorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

5 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