Schimmel v. Martin
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
LENNON J.
The above-entitled actions were separately instituted in the court below to recover from defendant damages for an alleged breach of a contract to furnish water to the respective lands of the plaintiffs. The cases come here on appeal upon separate records but the appeals have been submitted upon a single set of briefs and will, therefore, be considered and decided as one.
The undisputed facts are these: On the fourteenth day of February, 1918, a written contract was entered into between one O. K. Uzzell and A. J. Martin, defendant herein, which contract was in the words and figures as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Fawkes v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
3Cited by12 opinions
- California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Woodbine v. Van HornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- State of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Relovich v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Chrisman v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.