Legal Opinion

Palace Hardware Co. v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1901No. S.F. No. 1938PublishedCited by 34 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

HAYNES, C.

The plaintiff, by its attorney, William H. Jordan, Esq., brought an action in the superior court against the defendant, upon two separate causes of action, the first of which, amounting to $320.80, accrued to plaintiff directly, and the second cause of action, amounting to $105.73, accrued to the Pacific Refining and Roofing Company, and was by it assigned to said plaintiff and included in said action.

On October 20,1898, while said action was pending, Mr. D. C. Murphy, representing defendant’s attorney, Mr. Frank Sullivan, called upon plaintiff’s attorney and inquired what the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Brackett v. BanegasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Rauer v. WolfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Wolters v. RossiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Lusas v. St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  3. Maynard v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
  5. Hunter v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API