Kast v. Miller & Lux
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. F. A. Fee, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
In an action brought by plaintiff for personal services rendered defendant and for money expended at its special instance and request, a verdict for plaintiff was rendered and from the judgment entered thereon defendant appeals on a bill of exceptions.
Certain cases were being prosecuted in Madera County for the alleged larceny of horses belonging to the defendant Miller & Lux, and that corporation retained Judge Ostrander as an attorney to assist the district attorney of Madera County in the prosecution of these larceny cases. In April, 1908, Judge Ostrander engaged the plaintiff as a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lawall v. GromanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Bergtholdt v. Porter Bros.California Supreme Court · 1896
- People v. DyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Parker v. BondSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Garber v. BlatchleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1902
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- DiGiorgio Furit Corp. v. American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial OragnizationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Shields v. Oxnard Harbor DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. AFL-CIOCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Duff v. Schaefer Ambulance Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- Empire Investment Co. v. MortCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.