Legal Opinion

Prince v. Kennedy

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 7, 1906No. Civ. No. 152PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the" court.

1Opinion of the CourtGray, P. J.

In this action it is alleged in the complaint: “That Taylor & Porgy is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a copartnership, composed of W. S. Taylor and E. W. Porgy, who are, and at the times herein mentioned were, engaged in the practice of law as attorneys and counselors at law, in the city of Los Angeles, California. That within two years last past, as such attorneys and counselors at law, and at the special instance and request of the defendant, H. Kennedy, said Taylor & Porgy, rendered to and for said defendant services for which said defendant agreed to pay the reasonable value…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Moore v. Clear Lake Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Roberts v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Klokke v. EscaillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. County of Sutter v. McGriffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Miller v. BallerinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Western Land Office, Inc. v. CervantesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  2. Grass v. Rindge Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. Prince v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  4. Tipton v. SandsMontana Supreme Court · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API