Legal Opinion

Flinn v. Peters

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 13, 1906No. Civ. No. 170PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.

Action to foreclose a street assessment lien. Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled, and judgment entered for plaintiff as prayed. This appeal is from the judgment, and the sole contention of appellants is that the alleged contract is void, because of the following allegation in the complaint: “That said contract also provided that in the performance of the same eight hours should be the maximum hours of labor on any calendar day, and that the minimum wages of laborers employed by said contractors in the execution of said contract should be $2 per day.”

It is argued…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Brown v. JenksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Williams v. Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. BancroftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Highland Park Realty Co. v. City of TucsonArizona Supreme Court · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API