Legal Opinion

Burns v. Cushing

California Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1892No. 14137PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

— This is an action to recover a balance due for legal services alleged to have been rendered by Charles F. Hanlon, and assigned to plaintiff. Judgment went for plaintiff, and defendants appeal therefrom upon the judgment roll. The only point made is, that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the comrplaint.

1. In the complaint it is averred that in May or June, 1884, defendants retained and employed said Hanlon to commence, prosecute, and defend certain actions and proceedings at law and in equity and probate, and that “ in pursuance of said retainer said Hanlon rendered valuable…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tompkins v. MahoneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Hart v. SpectCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pleasant v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. City Street Improvement Co. v. WatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. Vanalstine v. WhelanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Proto v. ChenowethArizona Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Stansfield v. DunneArizona Supreme Court · 1914

1 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