Russell v. Riley & Peterson
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
McLUCAS, J.,
pro tern. — Plaintiff's first amended complaint sets forth two causes of action, the first being for the reformation of an agreement between the parties and to recover damages for the alleged breach thereof, and the second being an action for damages by reason of alleged negligence of the defendants in building a fire on the land of plaintiff and permitting the same to get beyond their control and to burn down plaintiff’s fence. The answer denies the material allegations in both causes of action, and pleads as a further defense thereto payment to the plaintiff on April 12, 1921,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Smith v. Occidental & Oriental Steamship Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Berger v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Hawkins v. HawkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Lestrade v. BarthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- B. & W. Engineering Co. v. BeamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Potter v. Pacific Coast Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1951
- Marlenee v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Dale v. DaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Kinkle v. Fruit Growers Supply Co.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Thompson v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.