Legal Opinion

Earl Fruit Co. v. Herman

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 5, 1928No. Docket No. 6227PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Action upon a bond executed by defendant Globe Indemnity Company, as surety, in favor of plaintiff corporation.

The complaint in substance alleges that on or about the thirteenth day of September, 1923, the plaintiff, Earl Fruit Company, entered into an agreement with defendant Samuel Herman, whereby said company agreed to make daily shipments of grapes during the season of 1923 to said Herman on consignment, the grapes to be sold by Herman as agent for plaintiff; that Herman agreed to remit to plaintiff the amount received from the proceeds of the sales, less any charge for commission to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Parker v. OtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Tyson v. ReineckeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  3. Kelley-Clarke Co. v. LeslieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  4. Tustin Fruit Assn. v. Earl Fruit Co.California Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Alpha Beta Food Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union Local 770California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Igauye v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  3. Asamen v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Hammond Lumber Co. v. Richardson Bldg. & Eng'g Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Baumgarten v. California Pacific Title & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API