Legal Opinion

Schimmel v. Martin

California Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1923No. L. A. No. 7276. L. A. No. 7277PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Fawkes v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Woodbine v. Van HornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. State of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. Relovich v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Chrisman v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927

7 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