Southern Pacific Co. v. City of Santa Cruz
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County and from an order refusing a new trial. Lucas F. Smith, Judge. The facte are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles M. Cassin, and James L. Atteridge, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is an action brought- to recover the sum of $1628.59, and interest, alleged to be due upon an account for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant at its special instance and request. The defendant in its answer denied the indebtedness and also pleaded that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The essential facts of the case, as disclosed at the trial, are these: In the month of December, 1906, the plaintiff sold to the defendant 231 feet of new water pipe at a price which was not then fixed but which was thereafter to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bancroft v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Sheridan v. City of SalemOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Yavapai County v. O'NeillArizona Supreme Court · 1892
- Churchill v. WoodworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Gill v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dryden v. Board of Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Foster & Kleiser Co. v. Special Site Sign Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Spencer v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Dillon v. Board of Pension CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.