Cavanagh v. Shaver
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County. Emmet Seawell, Judge. Affirmed as to defendant city, reversed as to codefendants. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to recover a judgment for money. Although the plaintiffs’ complaint is out of the ordinary, it may be said to be a complaint as for money had and received. The plaintiffs had judgment in the trial court and the defendants have appealed, bringing up papers which they claim to be a judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions. No motion to dismiss has been made, neither has a suggestion of the diminution of the record been made, and we therefore treat the record as sufficient.
[1] It was the theory of the plaintiffs in the trial court that they…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gray v. CottonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- McGowan v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Stow v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty.California Supreme Court · 1918
- Mahony v. Standard Gas Engine Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Collier v. ShafferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Greene v. Town of LakeportCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- City of Petaluma v. HickeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928