Griffith v. Happersberger
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
— Appeal from the judgment, and the case comes up on the judgment roll alone, appellant claiming that the findings of fact are such as entitle him to judgment, and that the court erred in its conclusions of law, and in rendering judgment on the findings for defendant.
The complaint is in indebitatus assumpsit, for the recovery of $2,050, for work and labor done and materials furnished. The answer denies the allegations of the complaint, and then sets up, as a further defense, that all the work and labor done and materials furnished for or to the defendant by plaintiff were done and furnished…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wolf v. MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Leonard v. . City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Portland Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. School District No. 1Oregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Redmond v. WeismannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Houghton v. SteeleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Prince v. LambCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Berry v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Robertson v. BurrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.