Rialto Construction Co. v. Reed
California Court of Appeal
CROSS-APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Geo. A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Page, McCutchen & Knight, and Page, McCutchen, Knight & Olney, for Rialto Construction Company, Appellant and Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtKerrigan, J.
In this case there are two appeals, both from the judgment, one being taken by plaintiff, and the other by the defendant.
A brief outline of the facts of the ease is as follows: On September 20, 1905, C. E. Loss entered into a contract with the Ocean Shore Railway Company to perform all the grading work, track-laying and surfacing for the company’s double track railroad from its initial point in San Francisco to Scott Creek in Santa Cruz county, being a distance of about sixty-seven miles. The contract, among other things, contained a classification of the materials to be worked, said…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Martinsburg & Potomac Railroad v. MarchSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Chicago, Santa Fé & California Railroad v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Sweet v. . MorrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Stephenson v. S. Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Palmer v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Datta v. StaabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Monson v. FischerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. WillisArizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Wenzel & Henoch Const. Co. v. Metropolitan Water Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Odell v. Colmor Irrigation & Land Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.