Krieger v. Feeny
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. P. J. Shields, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is an action for the recovery of a judgment on a number of claims assigned to plaintiff by the owners of said claims.
The complaint alleges that Feeny, Dyas and Barnes are copartners, engaged as such in carrying on and conducting the hotel and saloon business in the city of Sacramento, and that the several claims upon which this-action is brought are the result of goods and merchandise furnished and money loaned to and services performed for the defendants by the several parties assigning said claims to plaintiff. There are twelve of these claims, each separately pleaded in the form of a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bank of Lemoore v. FulghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Alexander v. Central Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Amestoy v. Elec. Rapid Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Alexander v. McDowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- McFarland v. HolcombCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Davenport v. StrattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Lemley v. Doak Gas Engine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Cameron v. Evans Securities Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- Smith v. BentsonAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1932
- Gaddis v. GrantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.