Legal Opinion
De Rigne v. Hart
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 29, 1928No. Docket No. 3560PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover damages'in the sum of $5,000 for the alleged breach by the latter of a certain contract made by and between the parties. The contract, which is in writing, is set out in the complaint in haeo verba, and as so pleaded is as follows:
“Los Angeles, California,
“October 1-1924.
“Agreement between Charles A. De Rigne of the first part and Richard D. Hart of the second part. I Richard D. Hart have entered into agreement with Charles A. De Rigne to Fiance and Promote the De Rigne Automobile Motor Eliminator, Serial number 726576, patent pending.
“For my…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pico v. CuyasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Wheeler v. FarmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Dukes v. KelloggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Rassaert v. MenschCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Russell v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. SobiekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Constans v. RossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Denning v. TaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Laughlin v. HaberfeldeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Kersch v. TaberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.