Legal Opinion
Blumer v. Kirkman Corporation
California Supreme Court
Decided February 21, 1952No. S. F. 18461PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.
Kirkman Corporation and Kirkman Nurseries, each of which is a corporation, have been sued to recover the purchase price of goods sold and delivered. The appeal is from an order denying their motion for a change of venue.
By his verified complaint, filed in the city and county of San Francisco, A. M. Blumer charges that, in Madera County, he sold and delivered to the two appellants certain quantities of fertilizer for an agreed amount. Payment was to be made to him at his San Francisco office when the Kirhmans’ next peach crop was marketed. At the time of filing the complaint, the crop had been…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hale v. BohannonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Bank of Yolo v. Sperry Flour Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Gordon v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. McLaughlin Land & Livestock Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
- Cook v. W. S. Ray Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pacific Bal Industries v. Northern Timber, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- Riverside County Flood Control v. Joseph W. Wolfskill Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Shida v. Japan Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Hata v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Archer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.