Legal Opinion

Frazier v. Murphy

California Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1901No. S.F. No. 2280PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Plaintiff brought the action, by a verified complaint filed September 8, 1896, against Hanson & Co., an alleged copartnership, for a balance due for labor performed for said copartnership, from June 1, 1890, until October 1, 1894, under a written contract alleged to have been entered into May 13, 1890, with said Hanson & Co. The cause was tried by a jury, and plaintiff had the verdict, and judgment followed. Defendants appeal from the judgment, on bill of exceptions.

The third amended complaint was filed August 23, 1897, and an answer was filed October 27, 1897, denying the alleged…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Falkner v. HendyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Yancy v. MortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Wise v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. E. M. Derby & Co. v. JackmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. WackenreuderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Clayton v. DinwoodeyUtah Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Wood v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  3. Coleman v. BowlesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  4. Barcroft v. LivacichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Bilby v. Hart-Parr Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924

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