Clancy v. Plover
California Supreme Court
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
- Grain v. AldrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Mulcahy v. BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Adams v. BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Rapp v. Spring Valley Gold Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Smith v. Faris-Kesl Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1915
- Edwards v. GrandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Buckeye Refining Co. v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Huber v. ShedoudyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Martin v. HoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.