Legal Opinion

Clancy v. Plover

California Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1895No. 15832PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Britt, C.

Under a contract with appellant the respondent did, and caused to be done, the work of painting a building and other structures situated on a parcel of land, the property of appellant, in the city and county of San Francisco. The work was completed March 9, 1891. For this appellant owed respondent $703, of which sum $345 was paid; and respondent brought this action to enforce a lien asserted by him against the premises where the work was done for the unpaid balance of $358. His complaint contains an allegation that an amount specified is a reasonable allowance for attorney’s fees in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Grain v. AldrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Mulcahy v. BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Adams v. BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Rapp v. Spring Valley Gold Co.California Supreme Court · 1888

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Smith v. Faris-Kesl Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Edwards v. GrandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Buckeye Refining Co. v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Huber v. ShedoudyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Martin v. HoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

14 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