Legal Opinion

Johnson v. De Waard

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 14, 1931No. Docket No. 7662PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARD, J., pro tem.

Defendants de Waard & Sons, bonded by the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, contracted with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to construct the Altadena storm drain. A part of this improvement consisted in excavating and concreting a tunnel, together with some work to be performed upon a drift or incline.

De Waard & Sons entered into an oral agreement, which was subsequently reduced to writing, whereby they subcontracted to the plaintiffs the excavating work at $8 per lineal foot, and the timbering at $5 per 1,000 b. m. feet of lumber put in place for…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Antonelle v. Kennedy & Shaw Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Otten v. SpreckelsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  3. Gillin v. HopkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  4. Bailey v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bastanchury v. Times-Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Summit Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
  3. Panno v. RussoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Cooley v. FrankWyoming Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Wolf v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

4 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