Legal Opinion

Smith v. Capital Gas Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided March 13, 1901No. Sac. No. 831PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH,C.

—The suit was brought to recover of the defendant liquidated damages,—amounting to thirteen hundred dollars,— alleged to be due under the provisions of section 629 of the Civil Code, for refusal to furnish gas to the plaintiff. The judgment was for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. The provision of -the code in question is, that, “upon the application, in writing, of the owner or occupant of any building or premises distant not more than one hundred feet from any main of the corporation, . . . the corporation must supply gas as required for such building or premises,” etc.;…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sheward v. Citizens' Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Andrews v. North River Electric Light & Power Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1898
  3. Conley v. ClayNew York Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Village of Hardwick v. Vermont Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1897

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. City of Tipton v. Tipton Light & Heating Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1916
  2. Johnson County Gas Co. v. StaffordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1923
  3. Thompson v. San Francisco Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
  4. State ex rel. W. J. Armstrong Co. v. City of WasecaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  5. Thompson v. San Francisco Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912

2 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