Treat v. Celis
41 Cal. 202
Opinion
The power of attorney and the letters of the principal were not sufficient authority to the attorney in fact to bind the principal by a contract of sale of the lands in controversy. The question whether the Probate Court has jurisdiction of a proceeding to specifically enforce the performance of a contract of sale of real estate is reserved.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Mr. Justice Crockett did not express an opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Treat v. Celis, 41 Cal. 202 (Cal. 1871).
41 Cal. 202 (Treat v. Celis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Robertson v. Allen
184 F. 372 (Fifth Circuit, 1911)
Barber v. Heade
20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 127 (Guernsey Circuit Court, 1907)
Barber v. Heade
10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 342 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1907)
White v. Bank of Hanford
83 P. 698 (California Supreme Court, 1906)
Helling v. Darby
79 P. 1073 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)
Stauffer v. Linenthal
64 N.E. 643 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Martin v. Ede
37 P. 199 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
McFarland v. Lillard
28 N.E. 229 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1891)
Grant v. Ede
24 P. 890 (California Supreme Court, 1890)