Legal Opinion

Karlik v. Peters

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 28, 1930No. Docket No. 64PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMES, J., pro tem.

This action was commenced by filing a complaint against appellant E. Rosamond Peters as the sole defendant. The complaint alleges in substance that on a certain date appellant entered into a contract with H. L. McFarland and Claude Swope, copartners doing business under the firm name of McFarland & Swope, as general contractors for the erection and construction for her of a bungalow court on certain real property belonging to her in the city of San Diego, and that said McFarland & Swope were authorized by defendant E. Rosamond Peters to act as her agents and as such to enter…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Asevado v. OrrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Bollinger v. BollingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Kelley v. KriessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Grossetti v. SweaseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Crown Products Co. v. California Food Products Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1947
  2. Adams v. National Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Woodstock v. WhitakerNevada Supreme Court · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API