Legal Opinion

Calloway v. Oro Mining Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 15, 1907No. Civ. No. 314PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, P. J.

Action for personal services of plaintiff and assignors. Judgment for plaintiff; new trial denied. Appeal by Florence A. Stongh, one of the defendants, from the order denying a new trial.

It appears from the record that Mrs. Stongh, the appellant, on July 16, 1902, was the owner of mining property in San Diego county which was subject to an executory contract of sale, under which the Oro Mining Company, a corporation, was in possession. Plaintiff and three others were engaged in work on the mine for the corporation, and becoming dissatisfied by reason of default in the payment of their wages,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Frost v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Brown v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hammell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Frost v. MighettoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Mosher v. BellasArizona Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API