Legal Opinion

Burns v. Renaker Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 11, 1932No. Docket No. 6879PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRICKE, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff's first cause of action is one for services rendered by her personally and the second cause of action is upon an assigned claim for services rendered by Jewel W. Burns, her husband. The only attack by this appeal is upon the judgment on the first cause of action, whereby respondent was awarded $732.30' with interest from the date of the termination of her services.

Appellant Renaker Company, a copartnership consisting of C. Taylor Renaker and his mother, was engaged in the undertaking business. While there is some conflict in the testimony, there is evidence…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Kimes v. Davidson Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. Macomber v. BigelowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Shellenberger v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. G. R. Bott v. American Hydrocarbon CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  2. Rodoni v. Harbor EngineersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. Parker v. Maier Brewing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. G. R. Bott v. American Hydrocarbon CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API