Legal Opinion

Marogna v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 18, 1951No. Civ. 18002PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARTLETT, J., pro tem.

By his second amended complaint, in his first cause of action, appellant alleged that he entered into a contract by the terms of which respondents were to move appellant’s house to another designated posi tion; that respondents agreed to perform all of their work in a good and workmanlike manner; that appellant performed all of the obligations he agreed to perform on his part but that respondents breached the contract in that the house was moved in such an unworkmanlike manner as to cause damage in the amount prayed for. The second cause of action alleged the ownership…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sheble v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Felton Water Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. McMorry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  4. Schlitz v. AkersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Albaugh v. Moss Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Von Nothdurft v. SteckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
  4. Stephens v. Baker and BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Love v. Double" AA" Constructors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API