Price v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Oliver O. Clark, Frank C. Collier, and Claud B. Andrews, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment and an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The suit was for the value of goods destroyed by a fire, which consumed defendant’s warehouse in which plaintiff’s property was stored.
The amended complaint was in two counts. In the first it was alleged that defendant falsely represented to plaintiff that his goods, placed in storage with defendant, were in a fireproof building customarily guarded by watchmen, night and day, to prevent loss by fire. It was also averred that, relying upon these representations, plaintiff left his property in defendant’s custody…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hood v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
- Tremble v. TumanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Kirstein v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
- Lynch v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916
- Laux v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975
- Henderson v. Harnischfeger Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Behr v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Thomson v. CasaudoumecqCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Skoglund v. Moore Dry Dock Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.