Legal Opinion

Shumway v. Woolwine

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 28, 1927No. Docket No. 4861PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McLUCAS, J., pro tem.

Defendants appeal from a judgment in a suit for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.

Plaintiff entered into a cost-plus agreement with defendants for the construction of a residence, under the terms of which plaintiff was to receive as compensation ten per cent of the total cost of labor and material. On April 8, 1922, defendants Woolwine moved into and took possession of the residence, when some , of the fixtures were not installed and some of the interior decorating had not been completed by reason of the dampness of the walls. It was agreed the decorators would finish this…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Perry v. QuackenbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Thomas Haverty Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Collins v. RamishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Rischard v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Patrick J. Ruane, Inc. v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Picerne Construction Corp. v. Castellino VillasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. Seafoam Mines Corp. v. VaughnIdaho Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Grettenberg v. CollmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API