Moritz v. Lavelle
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
The plaintiff and defendant entered into a verbal agreement to occupy and relocate a mine in Tulare County for their joint use and benefit. The plaintiff promised to pay all the expenses of the defendant, and furnish him with an outfit necessary to make the trip from Calaveras County to Tulare County, and *11to make the necessary examination of the mine; to pay the defendant’s board for a certain time, and furnish him with provisions, clothing, and blankets. It was agreed that if the mine had been abandoned, the plaintiff should join the defendant at the mine, and assist in working the sanie.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sandfoss v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Thompson v. SprayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Settembre v. PutnamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Gore v. McBrayerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- The Cal. Steam Navigation Co. v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Book v. Justice Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1893
- Neet v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Austin v. Hallmark Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
- Doyle v. BurnsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Floyd v. DuffyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1910
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.