Wiseman v. Sklar
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
CRAIG (ELLIOT), J., pro tem,
Plaintiff Kass and defendants Sklar have appealed separately from the judgment of the Superior Court, but have presented their appeals under a combined transcript and on combined briefs. There is, therefore, no occasion for separate discussions of the appeals.
The defendants were the owners- of an improved lot and a vacant lot in different sections of Los Angeles. They desired to have the building moved from the one lot to the other and there repaired, altered and improved. They had had various dealings with plaintiff Sidney J. Kass, then engaged primarily in the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Grain v. AldrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Rabe v. Western Union Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Taboada v. Sociedad Espanola De Beneficencia MutuaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Cutting Packing Co. v. Packers' ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Humphreys v. McCallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Crystal Pier Amusement Co. v. CannanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Walker v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Nester v. Western Union Telegraph Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1938
- AICCO, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- D. A. Parrish & Sons v. County Sanitation District Number 4California Court of Appeal · 1959
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.