Legal Opinion

Fish v. Correll

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 3, 1906No. Civ. No. 279PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, J.

The complaint in this case contains two causes of action. In the first the appellant alleged the full performance of a contract entered into between the parties hereto on June 2, 1903, by the terms of which appellant agreed, during the month of June, 1903, or within a reasonable time thereafter, to construct and cause to be erected a Scotch granite sarcophagus or ' tombstone, with foundation upon or near the grave of Dominick Correll at or near Grafton, Yolo county, for the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, which sum was to be paid to appellant by respondents upon the completion of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Burns v. Sennett & MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Hanley v. California Bridge & Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Withers v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ermolieff v. R. K. O. Radio Pictures, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Collins v. Marvel Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1970
  3. Industrial Commission v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1918
  4. Home Insurance v. Exchange Lemon Products Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API