Koeberle v. Hotchkiss
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
SCOTT, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff sued to recover for services rendered to defendants in connection with certain oil-hearing property owned by them and leased to a corporation to enable the latter to produce therefrom oil and gas. From judgment for plaintiff this appeal is taken by defendants.
It is first contended that “the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to permit defendants to show the true consideration for plaintiff’s agreement” under the terms of which the latter recovered. The agreement between the parties, dated October 3, 1921, recited substantially that in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Arnold v. ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Leonard v. MinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hendrick v. CrowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Lompoc Valley Bank v. StephensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Koeberle v. HotchkissCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Reynolds Irr. Dist. v. SproatIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
- Cline v. YamagaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Molybdenum Corp. of America v. KaseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. GoldsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.