Legal Opinion

Berry v. Maywood Mutual Water Co. Number One

California Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 1939No. L. A. 16924PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover $2,150, alleged to be the reasonable value of legal services performed for defendant Maywood Mutual Water Company Number One, a corporation. The trial court found that plaintiff had rendered services for defendant under oral contracts by which he was to be paid a monthly retainer fee of $50, and, after September 12, 1934, an additional fee of $50 for each day spent in court, and that all sums due plaintiff had been paid. The plaintiff admits receipt of payments totaling $1875, but contends that they did not cover the services which are the subject of the present…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Estate of BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Pacific Bank v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Scott v. Superior Sunset Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Raymond v. GloverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Pellett v. Sonotone Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Wells v. LloydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Gaillard v. Natomas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. Hernandez v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. SEE-TEE MINING CORPORATION v. National Sales, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1966

7 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