Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
55 Cal.2d 573 (1961)
JAMES P. ACED, Respondent,
v.
HOBBS-SESACK PLUMBING COMPANY (a Partnership), Appellant. [fn. *]
S. F. No. 20188.
Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
Apr. 6, 1961.
Crist, Peters, Donegan & Brenner and John M. Brenner for Appellant.
Ropers, Majeski & Kane and Eugene J. Majeski for Respondent.
GIBSON, C. J.
This is an appeal by cross-defendant Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Company (hereafter called Hobbs) from an order granting a new trial to cross-complainant Aced, who was doing business under the fictitious name of Functional Construction Company.
Aced contracted with plaintiff owners to…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited67 opinions
- Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Gagne v. BertranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- People v. KitchensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Phelan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jason Whiting v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2019
- Nadia Sheibani v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2019