Legal Opinion

Crabbe v. Mires

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 30, 1952No. Civ. 8127PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover for certain equipment and dredging supplies delivered to and used by a gold mining dredge operated in Trinity County. The action was against defendants individually and also against defendants doing business as Crescent Gold Dredging Company, a copartnership. Plaintiff’s complaint contained three causes of action. The first was for the reasonable value of goods sold and delivered to defendants as actual partners and also as ostensible partners; the second was upon an open book account; and the third was upon an oral contract. Only…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dickerson v. ColgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Carpy v. DowdellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Robinson v. American Fish & Oyster Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. Anglo-Californian Bank, Ltd. v. CerfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Blackmon v. HaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Armato v. BadenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. Howe v. City Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Martindell v. BodreroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Whittaker v. OttoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

6 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