Legal Opinion

Garland v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 28, 1933No. Docket No. 551PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover from defendant a balance of $591.21 alleged to be due for the performance of certain work provided for by the terms of a contract entered into between the parties and for the reasonable value of additional work performed by plaintiff which was not included in the contract. The defendant filed an answer containing a general denial of all allegations of the complaint and a cross-complaint whereby he sought to recover from plaintiff the sum of $315 on account of a promissory note in this amount executed by plaintiff to defendant as payee and an…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Kaufman v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Hulen v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Oakland RailwaysCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Schroder v. Aden Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
  5. De Jarnatt v. MarquezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Aetna Life Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  2. Piazzini v. JessupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  3. Darlington v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Rossi v. ZappaterraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Karl Sitte Plumbing Co. v. Darby Development Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1988

6 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