Karlik v. Peters
California Court of Appeal
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
- Asevado v. OrrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Connell v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Bollinger v. BollingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Kelley v. KriessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Grossetti v. SweaseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Crown Products Co. v. California Food Products Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Adams v. National Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Woodstock v. WhitakerNevada Supreme Court · 1944