Legal Opinion
Karales v. Los Angeles Creamery Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 6, 1918No. Civ. No. 2036PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
WORKS, J., pro tem.
The amended complaint in this action asks for judgment for the contract price of milk delivered during the months of January and February, 1915, at the special instance and request of the defendant. The answer alleges that the milk was delivered pursuant to the terms of a written contract between the parties and that none was delivered after February 10, 1915. A copy of the contract is attached to the answer as an exhibit. By it Karales agreed, under date of December 1, 1914, to sell and deliver daily, and the Creamery Company agreed to buy, all the milk produced by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McConnell v. Corona City Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. PenoyarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- L.A. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Amalgamated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Marsters v. Umpqua Oil Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Wood, Curtis & Co. v. SeurichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Durell v. Sharp HealthcareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- O'Hare v. Peacock Dairies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- Rathbun v. Security Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Lewis Publishing Co. v. HendersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Hogue-Kellogg Co. v. PetitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920