McCreary v. Toronto Midway Oil Co., Ltd.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action was to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and the appeal is from the judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. Respondent has made no appearance in this court and it is fair to assume that he has abandoned the case. His attorney in the court below died after the appeal was taken, and respondent failed to secure other counsel to represent him. The points made here for a reversal seem to have been urged at the trial and on the motion for a new trial, and we regret that we have not been furnished with the views of respondent and of the trial judge on…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Santa Monica Lumber & Mill Co. v. HegeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Berentz v. Belmont Oil Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Marchant v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Durkheimer v. Copperopolis Copper Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Baker v. Lake Land Canal & Irrigation Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
3Cited by10 opinions
- Clements v. T. R. Bechtel Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Todd v. MeserveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Precision Framing Sys. Inc. v. Luzuriaga, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Coates v. Shell Western E & P, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Gross v. HazeltineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.