Consolidated Lumber Co. v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. W. H. Thomas, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Albert Lee Stephens, City Attorney, and Charles S. Burnell, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal from the judgment, and upon the judgment-roll alone.
The respondent contracted to furnish to the appellant a large amount of lumber to be used in the construction of a municipal wharf. The agreement provided, as shown by the findings, that the city might deduct from the contract price the sum of fifty dollars for' each day that delivery of the lumber was delayed beyond the contract time. It also provided that “said sum of fifty dollars per day, in view of the difficulty in estimating such damage, is hereby agreed upon, fixed, and determined by the parties…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Nakagawa v. OkamotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Muldoon v. LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Potter v. AhrensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Pogue v. Kaweah Power & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by6 opinions
- Anaheim Citrus Fruit Ass'n v. YeomanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Krobitzsch v. MiddletonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Mayer v. BeondoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Six Companies of California v. Joint Highway Dist. No. 13Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- City of Los Angeles v. ShaferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.