Hampton v. Christensen
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Wal J. Tuska, Rigby & Rigby, P. F. Dunne, Walter H. Linforth, and Jackson Hatch, for Appellants. S. Rosenheim, Barna McKinne, and Jordan & Brann, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The opinion heretofore rendered in Department is modified by striking therefrom all of paragraph 6 down to and including the words "fees were excessive." So modified, the opinion and judgment in Department are approved and adopted as the opinion and judgment of the court in Bank.
The following is the opinion rendered in Department Two November 25, 1905, omitting the paragraph stricken out: —
2Cited by26 opinions
- Builders' Supply Depot v. O'ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Roystone Co. v. DarlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- A-1 Door & Materials Co. v. Fresno Guarantee Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Bird v. American Surety Co. of New YorkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Calhoun v. Huntington Park First Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.