Armstrong v. Barceloux
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment rendered in each of the above-entitled causes, which by stipulation were tried at the same time, the issues and testimony in each being of a similar nature.
The action by E. C. Armstrong, a corporation, consists of a single cause of action. W. A. Hosking sues as assignee for collection of the Golden Poppy Bakery & Confectionery Company, a copartnership; of the Sacramento Laundry, a corporation ; of the Meredith' Fish Company, a corporation; of the Peerless Ice Cream Company, a copartnership, and of the American Fish Company, a corporation. The claim of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Breeze v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Paine v. San Bernardino Valley Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Harris v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Keefe v. KeefeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Resetar v. LeonardiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Garcia & Maggini Co. v. ColvinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Nielsen v. SwanbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- B. F. Avery & Sons Plow Co. v. LightfootSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- English v. ShipleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.