Contracts · MBE-tested
CEDELIA M. LOWELL, Respondent, v. THE UNITED PROPERTIES COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Appellant
53 Cal. App. 798·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1921·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 3722.
First Appellate District, Division Two.
July 7, 1921.]
CEDELIA M. LOWELL, Respondent, v. THE UNITED PROPERTIES COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Appellant.
Contract—Delivery op Bonds—Damages por Breach.—Judgment affirmed on the authority of Snyder v. United Properties Company of California, 'ante, p. 428.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. T. W. Harris, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are identical with those stated in the opinion in Snyder v. United Properties Company of California, ante, p. 428.
R. P. Henshall for Appellant.
Nusbaumer & Bingaman for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — NOURSE, J.]
NOURSE, J.
Plaintiff recovered judgment for ten thousand dollars and interest against the defendant for breach of its contract to deliver certain bonds to plaintiff in accordance with certain written agreements designated as bond certificates issued to plaintiff’s assignor. The facts of the case are identical with those considered in Snyder v. United Properties Company of California, ante, p. 428, [200 Pac. 366], and by stipulation of counsel this appeal has been submitted upon the same set of briefs.
For the reasons s given in the opinion in that case, the judgment is affirmed.
Sturtevant, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.