Legal Opinion

Grigsby v. Hagler

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 14, 1938No. Civ. 1870PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

This is an action to recover for damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff as a result of frauds practiced by the defendant Belli.

The facts are not disputed and it was stipulated that the plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $731. The defendant Hagler was engaged in the wholesale beverage business and the defendant Belli was in his employ. Belli was furnished with a motor truck and sales pad and was author ized to make deliveries of beverages to customers of Hagler and to collect moneys due for products sold to them. The plaintiff was one of these customers and Belli…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Otis Elevator Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Walsh v. HuntCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Rahmel v. LehndorffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Johnson v. MonsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Stephenson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1892

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. J. C. Millett Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1954
  3. Transport Clearings-Bay Area v. SimmondsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. Walsh v. Hooker & FayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Danzig v. Jack Grynberg & AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API