Moon v. Martin
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. George E. Farrand and Leonard B. Slosson for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The object of this action was to recover damages on account of the failure and refusal of the defendants to deliver to plaintiffs two carloads of beans, in the performance of an agreement for the sale and delivery thereof by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs were partners doing business under the firm name of Moon-Taylor Company. They carried on their business in the city of Lynchburg, in the state of Virginia. The contracts for the sale of the two carloads of beans aforesaid were made in the month of May, 1916, by letters and telegrams through the mail and over the wires,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sioux Remedy Co. v. CopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Jameson v. Simonds Saw Co.California Court of Appeal · 1906
- Dover Lumber Co. v. WhitcombMontana Supreme Court · 1917
- Groneweg & Schmoentgen Co. v. EstesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Parsons-Willis Lumber Co. v. StuartCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1910
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. BradleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- People v. EstradaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- People v. WillardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Charlton Silk Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- People v. BradleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.