Legal Opinion

Bullock v. Taylor

California Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1896No. L. A. No. 88PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Waldo M. York, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Britt, C.

Action for breach of a contract in writing which plaintiff alleged was executed by defendants as copartners; by its terms plaintiff undertook to haul freight to be furnished by defendants; and they promised to pay him therefor. It was executed in the alleged firm name by defendant, C. O. Perry. At the trial the court granted the motion of defendants Taylor and Godbe for nonsuit as to them, on the ground that the instrument sued on was not their contract, said Perry excepting. A verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff and against Perry for the sum of two thousand five hundred…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Harper v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. In re Castle Dome Mining & Smelting Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Lancaster v. MaxwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Terry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chickasha Light, Heat & Power Co. v. BezdicheckSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  2. Badertscher v. Independent Ice Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Continental Building & Loan Ass'n v. BeaverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  4. Badertscher v. Independent Ice Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API