Bennett v. Hillman
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro tem.
The plaintiffs are attorneys at law and the action was brought to recover from defendant the value of services rendered to him by them and to recover cash advances made by them in connection with the services. The plaintiffs had judgment for nearly twenty-one thousand dollars and the defendant appeals.
The first contention of the appellant is that he was improperly denied the right of trial by jury in the action. The question presented largely concerns the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 631 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That subdivision was added to the section by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Vinson v. Los Angeles Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- City of Los Angeles v. ZellerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Blumer v. MayhewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Prince v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
3Cited by10 opinions
- Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Glogau v. HaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Mathews v. HornbeckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Stern v. HillmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Willett v. Schmeister Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.