McCartney v. Badovinac
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Pueblo District Coitrt. Hon. C. S. Essex, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
This is an action growing out of a written contract as follows:
“Whereas, Dr. Ragsdale of La Junta, Colorado, has accused Mrs. O. W. McCartney of the theft of a certain diamond and O. W. McCartney is desirous of learning the facts concerning the said affair, and Nicholas Bado*77vinac is a detective engaged in the business of detecting crime;
It is hereby agreed by and between the said O. W. McCartney and Nicholas Badovinac that the said Badovinac will undertake to discover who actually took the said diamond, if the same was stolen, or whether or not the same was stolen. And the said.O. W.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. . GardenNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Mackenzie v. MinisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- C. W. Hunt Co. v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Knights Templar & Masonic Mutual Aid Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- B.L., T. S.D. Co. v. . K.T. M.M.A. Assn.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Coats v. General Motors Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Caldwell v. ArmstrongColorado Court of Appeals · 1982
- Crum v. April Corp.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2002
- Severin v. LatzArizona Supreme Court · 1930
- McKendrie v. NoelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1961