Nofsinger v. Goldman
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County and from an order denying a new trial. Wheaton A. Gray, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
These appeals are from the judgment and. from the order denying defendants a new trial. Plaintiff sued the defendants as copartners doing business under the firm name of Hannaford & Goldman, to recover damages for injuries which he received by the explosion of the boiler of a threshing machine engine. He averred that the defendants engaged him to labor in and about their business of threshing grain, and that in the discharge of his duty it was necessary for him to be about and close to the threshing engine; that the engine and boiler were inadequate, unsafe; and defective in specified…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Magee v. North Pacific Coast RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Sanborn v. Madera Flume & Trading Co.California Supreme Court · 1886
- Vanderhurst, Sanborn, & Co. v. De WittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Colbert v. RankinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Salinas City Bank v. De WittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by26 opinions
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Shapiro v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Giannini v. CampodonicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Pigeon v. W. P. Fuller & Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Hansen v. BurfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.