Legal Opinion

Southfield v. Barrett

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 3, 1970No. Civ. 10011PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TAMURA, J.

This action arises out of a contract between plaintiff and defendant wherein plaintiff and one Prothro (not a party to the action or this appeal) agreed to advance $40,000 to defendant and defendant agreed to harvest and deliver to plaintiff hay to be grown on certain described lands. Plaintiff agreed to market the hay and to credit defendant with the proceeds less certain deductions, including commissions. After partial performance defendant refused to make further deliveries.

Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, money had and received, and account stated. As a special…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Emmons, Williams, Mires & Leech v. State BarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. La Rosa v. GlazeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Hainey v. NarigonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Asdourian v. ArajCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. BlasiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Homestead Supplies, Inc. v. Executive Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. Wong v. Tenneco, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Hiram Ricker & Sons v. Students International Meditation SocietyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1974

17 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