Legal Opinion
McGillivray Construction Co. v. Hoskins
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 24, 1921No. Civ. No. 2299PublishedCited by 4 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court,
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
This appeal is from a judgment directing the issuance of a writ of mandate requiring the defendant to make a true and correct final estimate of excavations made by the plaintiff under a contract for the construction of a concrete highway for Stanislaus County.
[1] Appellant assigns as error that the court failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appeal is taken upon the judgment-roll alone and therefore, in support of the judgment, it is presumed that findings were waived. (Mulcahy v. Glazier, 51 Cal. 627; Baker v. Baker, 139 Cal. 626 [73 Pac. 469]; Ladd v. Myers, 4 Cal.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- City of Austin v. CahillTexas Supreme Court · 1905
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. HenseySupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Conn v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
- Aetna Indemnity, Co. v. John WatersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Highway Department v. MacDougald Construction Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Terminal Const. Corp. v. Bergen, Etc., AuthorityNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- State Ex Rel. Malott v. Cascade CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1933
- Bates v. HoskinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921