Legal Opinion

Christenson v. Cudahy Packing Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1926No. Docket No. S.F. 10854PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

This action was instituted for the purpose of enforcing two common-law arbitration awards. The facts which form the basis of this controversy grew out of two contracts for the sale and delivery of eleven railroad tank-cars of soya bean oil. The contracts were identical in form except as to the date and number of cars of oil. One of them bore date May 21, 1920, and was for six cars of oil, and the other bore date May 25, 1920, and was for five cars of oil. The contracts were entered into by the defendant, the appellant herein, with the firm of Christenson, Hanify & Weatherwax. Since the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Curtis v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Sidlinger v. KerkowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. In Re Abrams and BrennanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
  4. Meloy v. Imperial Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C.S.T., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Agricultural Insurance Co. of Watertown v. BiltzNevada Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United Rubber WorkersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Delaware & Hudson R. Corporation v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API