Legal Opinion
Rains v. Arnett
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 21, 1961No. Civ. No. 6348PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, P. J.
In this action for money had and received, plaintiff-respondent seeks judgment against defendant-appellant for $4,526.30 based on a writing designated lease agreement, dated June 27, 1957, whereby plaintiff leased from defendant, for a 90-day period, subsequently extended by an oral agreement, a Mack tractor with semitrailer and a Peterbilt tractor with semitrailer, to be used in transporting goods 11 for hire. ’ ’ It provided:
“The rental payment for the leased equipment shall be made on the following basis:
Gross Revenue from hauling, less:
25% drivers’ commissions (wages)
15% commission
3%% B/E…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Overton v. Vita-Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Castagnino v. BallettaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Major-Blakeney Corp. v. JenkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Kraner v. HalseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Lortz v. ConnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Old Republic Insurance v. FSR Brokerage, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000
- Byrne v. HarveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- San Diego Housing Commission v. Industrial Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.