Eaton v. Richeri
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
This was an action to recover for services rendered. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
It is admitted by the pleadings that the defendant *186agreed to pay plaintiff at the rate of three dollars a day, such payment to be made in provisions and supplies, “and for any balance that might be due plaintiff, plaintiff was to wait until the mining property aforesaid was sold, or until a sum sufficient to pay plaintiff said balance was realized from said mine.” If the contract stated in the findings is any different from the foregoing, it is to be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by16 opinions
- H.S. Crocker Co., Inc. v. McFaddinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- W. F. Boardman Co. v. PetchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Shainwald, Buckbee & Co. v. CadyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Jones v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956
- Sanderson v. WellsfordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.