Legal Opinion
Charlton Silk Co. v. Jones
California Supreme Court
Decided January 18, 1923No. S. F. No. 6523PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILBUR, C. J.—
This is an action to recover the purchase price of goods, wares and merchandise. The action was begun June 27, 1910, before the enactment of the Statutes of 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 381) repealing sections 405, 406, 408, 409 and 410 of the Civil Code. The court found that the plaintiff’s principal place of business was the city of Chicago, state of Illinois, where it was engaged in the manufacture and sale of dry-goods at wholesale.
“That the plaintiff sent out traveling salesmen to California and said traveling salesmen solicited and received orders for merchandise and sent said…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sioux Remedy Co. v. CopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Moon v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- W. W. Kimball Co. v. ReadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
3Cited by5 opinions
- Detsch & Co. v. Calbar, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Proctor & Schwartz v. Superior Court of San Mateo CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Thorner v. Selective Cam Transmission Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Thorner v. Selective Cam Transmission Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Traid Corp. v. MendiolaDistrict Court, D. Guam · 1973