Shade v. Sisson Mill & Lumber Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Siskiyou County denying a new trial. Edward Sweeny, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1DissentHarrison, J.
I dissent. The transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant do not, in my opinion, disclose any of the elements of an estoppel; nor do I think that the receipt and retention by a laborer, without objection, of a statement of account rendered him by his employer, is governed by different rules from those which control a similar transaction between other parties. No reason is urged in support of such a proposition, other than that of estoppel, and no authority is cited to sustain it. In McClain v. Schofield, 74 Hun, 437, 26 N. Y. Supp. 700, the plaintiffs were commission merchants, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lockwood v. . ThorneNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Wiggins v. BurkhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Janin v. London & San Francisco BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Anding v. LevyMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
- Brown v. KimmelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.