Wilson v. Nugent
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Walter H. Linforth, and Johnson, Linforth & Whitaker, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Action to recover eight hundred and thirty-six dollars. Judgment for defendant. Motion for a new trial denied. This appeal is hy the plaintiff from the judgment and order. On May 16, 1895, one De Gear entered into a written contract with defendant to roof St. Rose’s church for three thousand three hundred and forty-four dollars. The contract was in the usual form and provided that twenty-five per cent, being the final payment, should be retained by defendant for thirty-five days after the completion of the contract. March 7, 1896, the contract was completed, and defendant made all…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- Wagner v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Reed v. NortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- John A. Roebling Sons Co. v. Bear Valley Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- De Camp Lumber Co. v. TolhurstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by28 opinions
- Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- French v. PowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Hill v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Ensele v. JolleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Cooper v. Spring Valley Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.