Legal Opinion

O'Connell v. Federal Outfitting Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 19, 1935No. Civ. 9659PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

The plaintiff sought to recover $29,167.23 on a written contract dated April 1, 1928, under which he and his partner were to make collections for the defendant and were to receive a commission therefor. The contract provided that the defendant might recall any accounts assigned to the plaintiff and his partner and agreed to pay full commission plus costs, where costs had been involved in the accounts recalled. In all other cases plaintiff and his partner were to bear costs. The plaintiff’s partner assigned his rights under the contract to plaintiff, defendant was notified, and there was no…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McConnell v. Corona City Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Sobelman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Robb v. CardozaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Darrah v. LangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Coleman v. MoraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Alphonzo E. Bell Corp. v. ListleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Rehart v. KlossnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Mayo v. Pacific Project Consultants, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Union Paving Co. v. United States ex rel. Soule Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API