Gray v. Cotton
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. White, Miller & McLaughlin, and. C. E. McLaughlin, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
Defendants, copartners under the firm name of Cotton Brothers & Co., entered into a contract with the city of Sacramento whereby they agreed to construct a main sewer and laterals in said city. The plaintiff is a subcontractor who entered into an agreement with the- defendants whereby he undertook to do the excavation and back filling necessary for such sewers.
This action was brought to recover the balance claimed to be due under such subcontract, together with certain other sums claimed to be due for extra work done, and damages alleged to have been occasioned by the defendants’ failure to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Loup v. California Southern RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- City St. Improvement Co. v. City of MarysvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Scanlan v. San Francisco & San Joaquin RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1977
- Austero v. National Casualty Co. of DetroitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Alvarez v. Felker Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Bohman v. BergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Gray v. CottonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.