Legal Opinion
Roebling Construction Co. v. Doe Estate Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 12, 1917No. Civ. No. 1625PublishedCited by 2 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. L. T. Price, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion' of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
The action was brought to recover a balance of $12,039.75 alleged to be due upon the contract price for concrete work performed on the Wiley B. Allen Building in San Francisco. The complaint sets forth in haec verba, the contract upon which the action is based. Among its provisions are the following:
“First: The contractor agrees, within the space of fifty (50) working days from and after the date of recording of this contract to have the foundations in shape to receive the east iron bases and side-walk beams (Balance of work in 35 working days); to furnish the necessary labor and materials,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. PenoyarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Bryson v. McConeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- City St. Improvement Co. v. City of MarysvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Mannix v. TryonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Bancroft v. San Francisco Tool Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Patrick J. Ruane, Inc. v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- United Iron Works v. Standard Brass Casting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929