Legal Opinion · Dissent

San Francisco Bridge Co. v. Dumbarton Land & Improvement Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1897No. S. F. 76Published

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1DissentTemple, J.

I dissent. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was to recover for labor and materials .done and furnished at defendant’s request.

The answer sets up a special contract under which it is charged that the work was done and materials furnished. Also that plaintiff has not performed said contract. The answer also denies that defendant is in default, and claims damages from plaintiff for its alleged violation of the contract.

In the written contract plaintiff agreed that it would, between the first day of May, 1892, and the thirtieth day of October,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lovell v. St. Louis Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Born v. . SchrenkeisenNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  3. State v. McCauleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Wolf v. MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Fountain v. Semi-Tropic Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1893

8 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